The main legal point established in the judgment is that while there were irregularities and non-application of mind by the Judicial Magistrate, the complaint was sufficient to attract the penal provision of Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the procedure for taking cognizance of the offence under the Act was clarified.

This criminal original petition has been filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in PRC No.14 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur based on a private complaint preferred by the respondent herein under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present criminal original petition can be stated thus:-

a) The respondent herein preferred a private complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections 464, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and an offence under the supposed Section 3(1)(VIII)(IX)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The following are the allegations found in the complaint.

"An extent of 0.86.0 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.113/2 in Veerakkalputhur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District within the limits of Karumalaikoodal Police Station had been purchased by the mother of the respondent herein (complainant) in and by a sale deed dated 05.05.1959 and there after she was in possession and enjoyment of the same till she gave it to the respondent/complainant under a registered gift settlement deed dated 09.05.2003. While so, the petitioner herein/accused, the then Village Administrative Officer of Veerakkalputhur, illegally entered the name of Papa, the mother of the petitioner, as the owner of the said land in all the revenue records like Chitta, Adangal, etc. When the respondent herein/complainant came to know the said fact, he along with one Ganamurthy went to the residence of the petitioner herein/accused and met him on 30.04.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. During the said meeting, the respondent herein/complainant questioned the petitioner herein/accused as to the propriety of his act of making false entries in the revenue records in the name of his mother. The petitioner/accused who did not deny the said allegation, simply offered a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000/-for the said land. As the respondent/complainant declined the offer and demanded at least Rs.15, 00, 000/- as consideration for the said land, the petitioner/accused humiliated and insulted the respondent herein /complainant referring to his caste in the presence of others."

b) The above said complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur and after recording sworn statements of the respondent herein/complainant, his son Ganamurthy and one Ayyadurai, summons were issued to the petitioner herein/accused. As the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur was of the opinion that one of the offences alleged, namely an offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions (Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the complaint was taken on file as PRC No.14 of 2006. The above said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate taking the complaint on file as PRC No.14 of 2006 is sought to be quashed in this petition, invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on various grounds set out in the criminal original petition.

3. This court heard the submissions made by Mr. K.V. Karunakaran and that of Mr. S. Packiaraj, learned counsel for the respondent. The materials available on records were also perused.

4. Mr. M.V. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced an argument to the effect that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein/accused based on the private complaint of the respondent herein/complainant was unsustainable in law and the same was liable to be quashed for the following reasons:-

i) there was total non-application of mind by the learned Ju