The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiated evidence and the fulfillment of specific legal criteria for the charges to be valid.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the Charges in PRC No.26 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet in Crime No.438 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent police and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending before the Court below in P.R.C No.26 of 2016.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. On 10.11.2012, at about 2.54 p.m, the petitioner is said to have made a phone call to the 2nd respondent and abused him in a filthy language and also criminally intimidated him and used his caste name and forced him to withdraw the complaint that was given by him. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.438 of 2016 for an offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 170 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act.

3. The investigation went on and a final report came to be filed before the Court below and it has been taken cognizance for an offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even as per the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is said to have abused over phone at 2.54 p.m. The learned counsel submitted that this allegation by itself will not attract the offences under Sections 294(b) and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, since the incident had not taken place in a public place. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the falsity of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent is exposed by the statement of L.W.15 who has categorically said that on verifying two mobile numbers, it was found that there was no such phone call that was received by the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the allegations are taken as it is, no offence is made out under Section 506(ii) of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his submission, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Another reported in CDJ 2020 SC 816.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that sufficient materials have been collected by the respondent police and the petitioner has to necessarily establish his defence only in the course of trial and there are no grounds to interfere with the proceedings at this stage.

6. The 2nd respondent has been served with notice and his name has also been printed in the cause list and there is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

7. The specific case of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner had abused him over phone on 10.11.2012 at 2.54 p.m. Even if this allegation made by the 2nd respondent is taken as it is, it does not make out an offence either under Section 294(b) IPC nor under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Both the provisions will get attracted only when the words are uttered in any place within the public view. Admittedly in this case, the allegation is that the words were uttered during a phone call that is said to have been made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent.

8. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner will squarely apply to the facts of the present case and the relevant portions in the judgement are extracted hereunder:

11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands subsituted by Act No.1 of 2016 w.e.f 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:

“3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”.

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be calssifi