Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 985
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
P. Alagarsamy
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary, Home Department, Chennai-9 and four others
Crl.O.P. No. 5615 of 1998
Decided On : 23-09-1999
Mr.P. Rathinam, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 4 and 7. Mr.R. Shanmugham, Senior Counsel Advocate for Respondent 5.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police has no authority to delete the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and direct the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation only for the IPC offences. The DSP is required to complete the investigation and file a report before the Special Court, which would then decide whether to take cognizance of the offence or not.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Investigation - Procedure - Powers of Deputy Superintendent of Police - Transfer of case from Special Court to Judicial Magistrate - Legality - Opportunity of hearing to informant - Violation - Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. - Exercise of.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was allegedly beaten by the accused persons belonging to the Kallar caste. He lodged a complaint with the police, which was registered as Crime No. 229 of 1997 for offences under Sections 147, 341, 355 and 323 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), who was competent to investigate the offences under the Act, took up the investigation and after examining some witnesses, concluded that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was not made out. He directed the Inspector of Police to take further action in respect of the other offences under the IPC. The Inspector of Police, after further investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused for offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. The case was transferred from the Special Court to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, which convicted the accused on his plea of guilt and sentenced him to pay a fine. The petitioner challenged the legality of the investigation, transfer of the case, and the conviction, contending that the DSP had no authority to delete the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and direct the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation only for the IPC offences, and that the Magistrate ought to have given him an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance of the offences.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the DSP had no authority to delete the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and direct the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation only for the IPC offences. The DSP was required to complete the investigation and file a report before the Special Court, which would then decide whether to take cognizance of the offence or not. The Inspector of Police also could not drop the offence under Section 355 IPC, since there were materials available to show that the accused had beaten the petitioner with a chappal. The transfer of the case from the Special Court to the Judicial Magistrate's Court was also illegal, as the DSP had no authority to direct the Inspector of Police to file a requisition for transfer of the FIR. The Magistrate ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance of the offences. The entire proceedings, including the conviction of the accused, were therefore set aside as illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the DSP had the authority to delete the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and direct the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation only for the IPC offences? 2. Whether the Inspector of Police could drop the offence under Section 355 IPC? 3. Whether the transfer of the case from the Special Court to the Judicial Magistrate's Court was legal? 4. Whether the Magistrate ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance of the offences?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The DSP had no authority to delete the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and direct the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation only for the IPC offences. The DSP was required to complete the investigation and file a report before the Special Court, which would then decide whether to take cognizance of the offence or not. (See para 25) 2. The Inspector of Police also could not drop the offence under Section 355 IPC, since there were materials available to show that the accused had beaten the petitioner with a chappal. (See para 29) 3. The transfer of the case from the Special Court to the Judicial Magistrate's Court was also illegal, as the DSP had no authority to direct the Inspector of Police to file a requisition for transfer of the FIR. The Magistrate ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance of the offences. (See para 34) 4. The entire proceedings, including the conviction of the accused, were therefore set aside as illegal. (See para 52)
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the trial court convicting the accused, directed the Superintendent of Police to appoint another Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct fresh investigation on the complaint of the petitioner, and directed the Home Department to take copies of the order and communicate the same to the Police Officers of all the Districts in the State.
1. Alagarsamy, a member of the Scheduled Caste and a victim for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), having suffered by the alleged mala fide investigation made by the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga, has tapped the doors of the highest court of this State requesting to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to correct the injustice done to him.
2. The factual matrix, which are required for solving the controversy, could be summarised as follows:
.(a) Alagarsamy, the petitioner herein, is the resident of Keerani Village, Devakottai Taluk. He is an agriculturist. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He is also connected with the organisations which used to fight for the redressal of grievances of the members of Scheduled Caste by reporting to the authorities for proper reliefs. He made a complaint to the Revenue Authorities with regard to the cutting of trees in the waste land of the Government by some unauthorised people.
.(b) On 11. 1997 at about 4.30 P.M., while he was standing in front of the rice mill belonged to Lakshmanan of Anumanthakudi, one Subramanian of Alangudi and other persons of Lakkamari and Alangudi belong to Kallar caste came and surrounded him. The said Subramanian took out his chappal and began to beat him on head and cheek by shouting When the petitioner shouted and resisted the beating by both hands, other four persons beat him with hands. On hearing the noise, Nanakudi Thains and Chettianthal Duriraju came and intervened and rescued the petitioner from the assault by the persons mentioned above.
.(c) Immediately thereafter, on the same day at about 8.00 P.M., he came to Devakottai Taluk Police station and gave a complaint. One Arul Santhosamuthu, Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No. 229 of 1997 for the offences under Section 147, 341, 355 and 323, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the act against the said Subramanian and 4 others.
.(d) The original copies of the F.I.R. were immediately sent to the Special Court (Principal Sessions Court) at Sivaganga and Mr. Nagarajan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga (5th respondent herein) for making investigation under Rule 7 of the Act, as the Deputy Superintendent of Police is the competent authority to investigate the offences committed under the Act.
.(e) On 11. 1997 at 8.45 P.M., the first informant was examined by Doctor, who found injuries on his cheek and head. It is stated in the wound certificate that he was alleged to have been attacked with hands and chappals by known persons.
.(f) Mr. Nagarajan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of F.I.R. copy on 111. 1997 at about 1.00 P.M., took up investigation and went to the spot at 3.00 P.M. At Anumanthakudi, he examined Alagarsamy, Lakshmanan, Chelliah, Manickam, Ramanathan and Chellan.
.(g) Witness No.5 Ramanathan and witness No. 6 Chellan were the witnesses for the observation mahazar and the sketch. Witness No. 1 Alagarsamy would state about what had happened, as stated in the F.I.R. Witness No. 2 Lakshmanan and Witness No.3 Chellaiah would state that though the occurrence had taken place, the accused persons did not abuse by using caste name.
.(h) On the basis of these statements, Mr. Nagarajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, came to the conclusion that the complaint was given by Alagarsamy with exaggerated version and that though the occurrence had taken place, it has been falsely stated in the complaint that he was abused by using the name of caste, in order to harass the accused persons
.(i) Therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police decided to delete the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and directed the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Devakottai (6th respondent herein) to take
