The need for strict construction of penal statutes and the requirement for clear and distinct language when imposing penalties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records connected with the order made in Cr.M.P.Sr.No.18115 of 2021 dated 09.06.2022 by the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Cases/Judicial Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and set aside the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to file an FIR and direct the 1st respondent to conduct investigation as per law within the time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.)

This revision is filed aggrieved by the order of the Court of Sessions, Chennai (Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), dated 09.06.2022, in Crl.M.P.Sr.No.18115/2021, in and by which, the prayer of the petitioner to refer his complaint, dated 26.07.2021, for investigation by the respondent police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Judge.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case where the petitioner has suffered injustice in the matter of registration of complaint itself. He would submit that he filed the present petition on 30.09.2022 before the Trial Court. Strangely, the petition has not even been numbered and was returned with some queries. While representing, the petitioner had also filed the requisite affidavit and appropriate Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, a strange procedure of recording sworn statement was resorted to by the Trial Court and after recording the sworn statement without even numbering the petition, the Trial Court rejected the petition. The reasons given by the Trial Court that the complaint has been filed in a routine manner to harass the proposed accused is without any basis. The Trial Court has also given an erroneous finding that the complainant did not file the affidavit. Therefore, he would submit that this is a case for interference by this Court.

3. Taking further through the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 26.07.2021 in this case, he would submit that the proposed accused, namely, Dr.Rita John had clearly and categorically made an allegation as if the petitioner misbehaved with the women students and he had written bad words on the whiteboard. The proposed accused knows the caste of the petitioner. Only because the petitioner belongs to Schedule caste she made such allegations against the petitioner. From the very fact that the University did not take any action against the petitioner, it is proved that there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner. Once the complaint is said to be a false complaint, offences under Sections 3 (1) (u) and 3(1) (zb) are made out. Therefore, when the complaint of the petitioner discloses prima facie cognizable offences, the Trial Court ought to have referred the same for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that this is a case in which the petitioner being a Professor had misbehaved with the women students. The said conduct on his part was reported to the higher authority by way of a complaint. Therefore, as a counterblast this complaint is made. He would submit that as a Head of the Department, it was the duty of the proposed accused to bring it to the knowledge of the superior officer and she has only done the same. If FIR has to be registered even in respect of the said conduct, then the same would be beyond the scope and ambit of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He would submit that the veracity of the complaint, whether the University had taken action or not is not known at this stage. Therefore, he would submit that there are no merits in the revision.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records in this case. At the outset, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court, in this case, is not in accordance with the law laid down in Lalitha Kum