The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for factual evidence to establish a case under the relevant Sections of law and the importance of impleading relevant parties in the proceedings.

The petitioner, alleging to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste being a member of the Hindu Pallan community and professing Hindu religious faith, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition praying to call for the records and quash the final report dated 14.11.2002 filed by the first respondent before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi in Crl.M.P.No.4936 of 2002 as illegal and improper and to issue necessary directions or orders for fresh investigation in respect of the complainant's complaint dated 28.10.2002 filed before the said Magistrate by any other competent investigating agency.

2. The petitioner would submit that on 26.10.2002 while he was going through the leading Tamil Daily magazines `Dina Thanthi' and `Dina Malar' circulated in his area, he read a press statement in the nature of a circular given by the 4th respondent/accused inviting all Hindu Religious communal associations to attend a meeting to be held at Madras in respect of giving clarification to the present enactment of the State of Tamil Nadu prohibiting compulsory religious conversion, which is an insult on all the members of the S.C. and S.T. communities within the public view and the entire statement is in the nature of creating enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious classes, castes and communities.

3. The petitioner has also extracted the objectionable portion of the 4th respondent, which is extracted below:

4. Extracting the above Tamil version of the publication, the petitioner would state that he presented the complaint against the fourth respondent/accused for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under Section 505(2) of the IPC and Section 3(g) of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, who took the complaint on file, numbered the same as Crl.M.P.No.4936 of 2002 and directed the first respondent to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and to submit a final report thus forwarding the said complaint to the first respondent on the very same day.

5. The petitioner has further stated that since nothing was heard from the first respondent, he appeared before him on 9.11.2002 and enquired about the stage of the case, when he was given to understand that the said complaint was to be sent to the Assistant Director of Prosecution at Virudhunagar seeking opinion regarding the sustainability of the complaint and registering the case for investigation and the final report would be submitted before the Court. During the said meeting, the petitioner is also alleged to have informed the first respondent of the mandatory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 followed by which he also submitted an explanatory letter dated 13.11.2002 by registered post; that in spite of receipt of the said letter on 14.11.2002, the first respondent did not consider anything stated therein and filed the final report accompanied by the legal opinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecution before the Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner's complaint did not disclose or satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged against the fourth respondent and therefore no investigation was necessary, based on which the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi passed an order on 18.11.2002 stating that the petitioner's complaint in Crl.M.P.No.4936 of 2002 stood rejected.

6. On rejection of his complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi in the manner aforementioned, the petitioner, stating that the final orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.4936 of 2002 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi are prima facie illegal and liable to be quashed, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of memorandum such as (i) that the first respondent has no statutory right or powe