IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
K. Damodharan - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode & Others - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1276 of 2022
Decided On : 22-09-2022
SC/ST Act - Failure to Register FIR - The court set aside the order dismissing the petition and directed the petitioner to file a fresh complaint before the police on the same cause of action, emphasizing the need for the police to investigate the matter and file a charge sheet in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against an individual, alleging brutal attack and humiliation in public view. The police and the Superintendent of Police did not take any action, leading the petitioner to file a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases, which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a perversity in the order passed by the Special Judge and set it aside, directing the petitioner to file a fresh complaint and the police to investigate the matter and file a charge sheet.
Issues: Failure to register FIR, dismissal of the petition, and the need for police investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of investigating the matter and filing a charge sheet in accordance with the law, setting aside the dismissal of the petition by the Special Judge.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed, the order of the Special Judge is set aside, and the petitioner is directed to file a fresh complaint before the police for further investigation.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C to call for the entire records connected with the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2022 dated 20.06.2022 by the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Cases/Judicial Principal Sessions Judge, Erode and set aside the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to file an FIR as per law and within the time frame fixed by this Court.)
1. This revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 20.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases/Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint against one Gowtham before the second respondent -Inspector of Police, Vellore Police Station, Erode but they did not take any steps to register the F.I.R, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Erode and they have also not taken any action, he preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases/Principal Sessions Judge, Erode in Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2022 and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the proposed accused are known to each other, due to money dispute the accused brutally attacked the petitioner and humiliated in the public view. Further, the petitioner belongs to the member of the scheduled community and the proposed accused is the non-member of the scheduled community. Therefore, he approached the respondent/police, but they have failed to register the case, he filed a petition before the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases/Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, since the offence attracted under Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989 [ hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act' for the sake of convenience]. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner has not specifically brought the case under the purview of the SC/ST Act and also the petitioner has not indicated the community of the accused Gowtham.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court to the original complaint in which though the petitioner has not expressly stated that in the public view the accused insulted him, but he has stated that he had attacked and also scolded him in filthy language. Even assuming that the offence under Section SC/ST Act would not attract, the leaned Sessions Judge would have forwarded the complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate to look into the matter or to direct the respondent/Police to register the case and investigate the matter, instead of dismissing the complaint. He would further submit that once the accused is the non-member of the Scheduled Caste Community and the complainant is the member of the Scheduled Caste it is a presumption that they committed the offence under Sections 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act. The police authority without considering the same simply ignored the complaint given by the petitioner and not taken any action. Similarly, the learned Sessions Judge also simply dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not specifically brought the case under the purview of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the revision has to be allowed and a direction may be given to the respondent police to register the case and investigate the matter.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Police submitted that both the petitioner and the proposed accused entered into a compromise and they did not want to proceed with the case further. He further submitted that at the time of filing the complaint, the petitioner has not stated anything about the offence under SC/ST Act and that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Failure to register FIR and the need for police investigation under the SC/ST Act.
The need for strict construction of penal statutes and the requirement for clear and distinct language when imposing penalties.
A prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Act, 1989 and there is no provision of leading pre charge evidence before court of Sessions, no illegality....
Omission of caste insult in initial police intimation does not vitiate SC/ST (POA) Act proceedings if substantiated later.
A complaint dismissed before registration does not bar a subsequent complaint on the same facts, provided it is not dismissed on merit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.