The court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of the SC/ST (POA) Act, ruling that allegations lacking credible evidence can lead to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The sole accused in S.C. No. 388/2019 on the files of the Special Court, Ernakulam, as per the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short SC/ST (POA) Act), arising out of Crime No. 282/2015 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, has filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prayer is as under:

To quash Annexure A1 Final Charge against the petitioner in S.C. No. 388/2019 pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam by setting aside the proceedings initiated in Annexure-A5.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the defacto complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Kerala and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi City Police Station, Ernakulam. Perused the records placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the case diary as such produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In this matter, FIR was registered on 23.02.2015 alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/SC (POA) Act by the accused, pertaining to an occurrence on 17.12.2013, after one year and three months. The precise allegation is that on 17.12.2013, when the 3rd respondent, a member of Scheduled Caste Pulaya Community reached Women Police Station, Ernakulam in connection with a complaint lodged by her alleging that one Maya, the wife of Rajendran was liable to pay Rs.6 lakh obtained by Maya's husband Rajendran. Maya and the accused herein were also reached the Police Station in this connection. Therefore, the 3rd respondent was sent back with direction to settle the dispute through process of court. At about 12.30 hours, when the 3rd respondent, a member of Scheduled Caste Community came out, the accused, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community abused her and commented that On this premise, the prosecution case is that the 3 rd respondent was insulted and intimidated with intention to humiliate her within public view by calling her caste name, by the accused. Earlier Maya also was arrayed as the 2nd accused.

4. In this matter, initially Sri. S.T. Suresh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police conducted investigation and on completion of investigation, he filed Annexure A3 Final Report on 14.11.2015 reporting that the allegations are false and accordingly, he requested the court to record the same and close the case. After filing of the said report, during 2017, the 3rd respondent filed complaint before the Director General of Police, in turn the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Kochi City and thereby, the case was ordered to be further investigated. Thereafter, Annexure A1 Final Report was filed on 25.11.2017 by the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam alleging that the accused committed the above offences.

5. Now Annexure A1 Final Report, which negated Annexure A3 Final Report is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner, who is the sole accused therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though as per Annexure A3, the earlier Investigating Officer investigated the crime and found that the allegations are false, thereafter even without any effective further investigation or without recording statement of any other witnesses, relying on the earlier statements and records, the present Investigating Officer filed Annexure A1 without any basis. It is pointed out that the petitioner went abroad in search of a job after submission of Annexure A3 Final Report and all the subsequent proceedings were in the absence of the petitioner and the petitioner was totally unaware of the proceedings. It is also pointed out that no fresh evidence or witness statements, recorded to file Annexure A1 report in deviation from Annexure A3. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint befor