SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Dr. A. Ganapathi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore & Another - Respondents
Crl.OP No. 24410 of 2017 & Crl.MP.Nos. 14117 of 2017 & 1792 of 2018
Decided On : 30-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Ramesh, Senior Counsel, R. Veeramani, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor, R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 – Jurisdiction - Quash the same as illegal, arbitrary – First Information Report - This is yet another case which has come up for consideration before this Court where on one side accused is claiming that Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is being misused by giving a false complaint and on other side victim claims that she has been subjected to economic boycott social boycott and there atrocity has been committed against her which is punishable under Section 3 of Act – Held, This Court is of considered view that respondent has virtually attempted to ventilate her grievance regarding her employment and Post Doctoral Fellowship, by using Act. - Act cannot be converted into a Charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens - Any harassment of a citizen by using this Act is against the guarantee given by Constitution - If such false complaints are entertained instead of blurring caste lines it will only promote caste hatred - Such false complaints unfortunately may even perpetuate castes - Legislature never intended to use this Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance against innocent citizens - This sensitization has to be necessarily understood by prosecuting agencies - This Court is completely aware about prevailing discrimination that continuous against persons belonging to SC & ST Community more particularly in rural villages. There are vested interest who wants this caste system to continue for their own selfish interest - It is unpalatable to mention but yet it is a painful reality that entire system in State is operating in lines of caste. Even candidates are selected during elections based on the majority caste to which he belongs in particular locality - This caste gene if it can be so coined is deeply entrenched in people particularly in villages – Unless this gene is completely effaced this major problem is bound to continue - Allegations made in FIR even if it is taken on their face value and accepted in its entirety do not constitute an offence or make out a case against accused - In considered view of this Court case on hand is one such case where criminal proceedings is manifestly tainted with malaises and this Court has to necessarily interfere with same - Petition is allowed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC to call for the records pertaining to impugned FIR dated 06.11.2017 registered against the petitioner in Crime No.349 of 2017, pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process and without jurisdiction.)

This is yet another case which has come up for consideration before this Court where on the one side, the accused is claiming that Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter called as the Act), is being misused by giving a false complaint and on the other side, the victim claims that she has been subjected to economic boycott, social boycott and thereby, an atrocity has been committed against her, which is punishable under Section 3 of the Act.

2. The petitioner was working as the Vice Chancellor of Bharathiyar University. The Defacto Complainant is a Doctorate in Bio-Technology and she applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Bio-Technology at Bharathiyar University. According to the defacto complainant, this post was ear-marked for SC Arunthathiyar Women candidate. According to the 2nd respondent, she possessed all the qualifications for being appointed as the Assistant Professor in the Department of Bio-Technology. However, the University proceeded to appoint a Male SC Candidate, which according to the defacto complainant is against the recruitment rules.

3. The further grievance of the defacto complainant is that she was selected for the post of Dr.D.S.Kothari Post Doctoral Fellowship and this research fellowship tenure is for a period of five years and the defacto complainant would have earned fellowship amount of Rs.46,500/- + HRA per month. The Defacto Complainant had also submitted the verification proforma to the Registrar on 27.06.2017 through the mentor Dr.V.Balachander, Department of Human Genetic and Molecular Biology. Even the final selection list of Post Doctoral Fellowship for workmen (2017-2018) carried the name of the Defacto Complainant in Sl.No.23. However, the petitioner deliberately deprived the 2nd respondent of the fellowship by writing letters to University Grant Commission (UGC) to cancel the consideration of the name of the 2nd respondent. Due to this, the 2nd respondent was deprived of her fellowship and she was asked to change the institute and the Mentor. When this was questioned by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner as the Vice Chancellor did not even permit her to enter into the Section and directed the staffs not to give any answers to the 2nd respondent about the Fellowship. This according to the 2nd respondent amounts to economic boycott.

4. The further grievance of the 2nd respondent is that her husband was working as a Driver at Bharathiyar University and he was stripped of his job. Admittedly, the husband of the 2nd respondent belongs to backward community and he lost his job only because of the Inter-caste Marriage with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had also alleged in the complaint that she was treated as a untouchable person and she was insulted within public view by the petitioner. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, respondent police registered an FIR against the petitioner for an offence under Sections 3(1) (za) (E), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

5. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, has made the following submissions :-

(a) Even if all the allegations made in the FIR are taken as it is, no offence has been made out against the petitioner under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act.

(b) The entire incident is said to have taken place between June to August 2017 and the complaint itself came to be given only on 06.11.2017 and it has been registered on the same day even without a preliminary enquiry, more particularly, due t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top