Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. K.B.GANGESH SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH HARISANKAR.K.V. ATHIRA A.MENON
For the Respondent: SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

• Case Details: The petitioners are accused persons in crime no. 322/2012, pending as S.C. No. 343/2019 before the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Thrissur, involving offences under various IPC sections and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST POA Act (!) .
• Procedural History: The case was originally closed after six years with a final report filed; however, it was reopened after a complaint by one injured person (CW3) to the District Police Chief, leading to further investigation and the incorporation of the SC/ST charge in the final report (!) (!) .
• Petitioner's Argument: Counsel argued that the original statements lacked any allegation of dishonour, outraging modesty, or reference to caste status, and that the caste reference appeared only in subsequent statements during further investigation, suggesting a lack of bona fides and intent (!) .
• Legal Standard (Supreme Court Precedent): Relying on Dashrath Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner argued that an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) requires the act to be committed with the specific intent to dishonour or outrage modesty based on caste status, which was absent in the original statements (!) .
• Respondent's Argument: The Public Prosecutor contended that an inadvertent omission to specify caste status by victims cannot be exploited by the accused, and the question of delay is for the Trial Court, not a ground for quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (!) .
• Court's Finding on Intent: The court observed that there is no whisper in any statement regarding an intent to dishonour or outrage modesty, and the original statements were completely silent on the caste status of either party (!) .
• Legal Principle Established: The court held that a mere reference to caste status is insufficient; the offence must be perpetrated owing to such caste status, and without the necessary ingredient of intent to act against a person based on their caste, the charge does not lie (!) (!) .
• Supreme Court Extraction: The judgment explicitly notes that Section 3(1)(xi) requires the offence to be committed upon a person belonging to SC/ST with the intention that it was done on the ground of caste (!) .
• Decision: The court found the ingredient of caste-based intent conspicuously absent in the attendant facts, leading to the quashing of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST POA Act while leaving other offences intact (!) (!) .
• Jurisdictional Note: The quashing of the SC/ST POA charge may cause the Special Court, Thrissur, to cease having jurisdiction over the case (!) .