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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 193

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
R.S. Bharathi – Appellant
Versus
The State, Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai & Another – Respondents
CRL.O.P. No. 20070 of 2020 & CRL. M.P. Nos. 8318 & 8320 of 2020
Decided On : 22-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R. Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel
For the Respondents:A. Natarajan, Public Prosecutor Assisted by M. Md. Muzammil, R2, V. Raghavachari, Advocates

The power of quashing of a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases, and the court is not expected to express any views on the merits related to the realm of appreciation of evidence to decide the credibility of the case put forward.

Headnote:

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Quashing of Proceedings - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) - The court held that the power of quashing of a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. The allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the prosecution should be taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety. The court also emphasized that it is not expected to express any views on the merits related to the realm of appreciation of evidence to decide the credibility of the case put forward. The court concluded that the remarks made by the accused prima facie showed disrespect and insult to the oppressed community, and it was not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a political leader, was charged for making disrespectful remarks on members of oppressed class, stating that the appointment of lower caste judges was at the alms rendered by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner filed a petition to quash the proceedings against him, contending that the delay in filing the complaint was with mala fide intention and that his remarks were not intended to disrespect the judges or the members of the Scheduled Caste.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the remarks made by the petitioner prima facie showed disrespect and insult to the oppressed community. It concluded that it was not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Issues: The issues involved the alleged disrespectful remarks made by the petitioner and whether the proceedings against him should be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of quashing of a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. The court is not expected to express any views on the merits related to the realm of appreciation of evidence to decide the credibility of the case put forward.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition and directed the trial Court to complete the trial on a day-to-day basis expeditiously without any further delay.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the final report filed in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2020 before the Special Court No.1 for trial of Criminal Cases related to MP's and MLA of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court No.1 for Trial of Criminal Cases related to MP's and MLA of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the charge sheet, are as follows:

Pursuant to the FIR dated 12.03.2020 registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Teynampet Police Station, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner belonging to Dravidian Progressive Federation (DMK), political party and a well known leader, on 15.02.2020 had organized an event namely, Kalaignar Vaasagar Vattaram. In the said function, the accused and the other leaders of the party had addressed the audience of more than 100 numbers consisting of party member, media and general public. The accused made disrespectful remarks on the members of oppressed class stating that the appointment of Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.Varadharajan, who belongs to lower caste, and other 7 or 8 appointments of lower caste judges of High Court, were at the alms rendered by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Besides, he has also made a statement that even one single harijan was not made as High Court judge in Mathyapradhesh, however, in Tamil Nadu 7 or 8 members of the Schedule Caste were made as High Court Judges by the alms rendered by the Dravidian Progressive Federation. Based on the FIR lodged by one Kalyana Sundaram, investigation was conducted and final report has been laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police for the offence under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Act.

3. The prosecution has examined as many as 30 witnesses and recorded their statements and final report has been taken on file in C.C.No.1 of 2020. To quash the said proceedings, this petition has been filed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint and such delay is with mala fide intention. The Defacto complainant selectively extracts few lines from the speech of the petitioner. Further, the entire materials collected by the prosecution would not prove the offence under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Act and the entire prosecution has been made due to political animosity with an mala fide intention, since the petitioner belongs to different political party. The petitioner has simply thought to give credit for the appointment of Judges among the members of the Scheduled Caste. His remarks were not intended to disrespect the Hon'ble Retired Mr.Justice A.Varadharajan or any other Hon'ble Judges. Hence, the speech of the petitioner should not be construed to mean that he has insulted or humiliated other Judges of the Schedule Caste or the members of the Scheduled Caste. Hence, it is the contention that the petitioner being a Member of Parliament and also a leader of Dravidian Progressive Federation, he did not commit any such offence. Hence, prayed for quashing of the FIR.

5. In respect of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Hitesh Varma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another [Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020].

6. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the entire speech of the petitioner not only disrespects the Judges from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, but also insulted the other members of the Scheduled Caste. His entire allegations when read together, the same lead to th

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