JUDGMENT :

1. The revision petitioners herein are the proposed accused in S.C. No. 3 of 2013.

2. Brief facts leading to the above Criminal Revision Case are as under:

The respondents 1 and 2 herein/complainants have filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 1357 of 2017, under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, 1989, to implead the petitioners herein as accused in S.C. No. 3 of 2013 and the same was allowed and hence, the Criminal Revision Case.

3. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the defacto complainant viz. Sellammal has given a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No. 168 of 2012, for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, 1989.

4. The nutshell of allegations in the complaint are as under:

(a) On 06.06.2012, the second respondent police has registered a case in Crime No. 168 of 2012 against the revision petitioners herein (A2 and A3) and the respondents 3 to 5(A1, A4 and A5) for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, on the basis of a complaint given by one K. Sellammal alleging that the accused persons had committed the alleged crime on 13.05.2021.

(b) Thus, the prosecution case is that the accused persons had obstructed the right of entry in and over the cart track which was allegedly enjoyed by the defacto complainant for years together. Whileso, on 13.05.2012 at 08.00 a.m. when the complainant was driving her bullock cart loaded with agricultural produces, she was intercepted by the accused persons and they have abused her by using her caste name, and they have also criminally intimated with dire consequences.

5. The first petitioner is a practising Lawyer/A2 and the second petitioner/A3 is his mother, aged about 70 years (at the time of the alleged offence in the year 2012). The petitioners herein who arrayed as A2 and A3 in FIR were deleted from the case pursuant to the investigation conducted by the respondents 1 and 2. The reason being, the first petitioner was not present at the place alleged occurrence on 13.05.2012, whereas, he accompanied with the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed in I.A. No. 180 of 2012 to inspect the suit property in O.S. No. 86 of 2012 at T. Goundampalayam, Tiruchengode Taluk whereas the alleged occurrence took place at Adhi Muthan Pallam.

6........

(a) It is seen from the connected records that the complainant PW-1 had already filed a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 27852 of 2013 to conduct further investigation in Crime No. 168 of 2012 to include the petitioners as the accused and it was closed on 31.01.2014 and thereafter, the complainant had also filed Crl. O.P. No. 16997 of 2012, W.P. No. 23170 of 2012 and W.P. No. 13363 of 2013 before this Court and suffered a line of orders dated 20.07.2012, 28.08.2012 and 25.11.2013 respectively.

(b) Thus, this Court finds that initially these petitioners were arrayed as A2 and A3 in FIR in Crime No. 168 of 2012 and after investigation, the respondent police have dropped the present reversion petitioners from the charge-sheet on obtaining necessary approval from the District Public Prosecutor, charge-sheet has been filed and PRC was taken on file and case was committed to the Sessions and re-numbered as S.C. No. 3 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namkkal. When the trial is in progress PW-1/defacto complainant viz. Sellammal deposed in support of her FIR as mentioned and referred the names of the petitioners herein along with the respondent 3 to 5 herein.

7. On the subsequent hearing, it appears that the respondents 1 and 2, (investigation agency), based upon the evidence of PW-1, had filed the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 1357 of 2017, filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to