The main legal point established is that a complaint alleging offenses under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not barred by limitation, and the court directed a fresh enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to set aside the docket order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in un-numbered Crl.M.P.No.... of 2019 and to direct the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli to take the complaint of the petitioner in un-numbered Crl.M.P.No..... of 2019, on the file and proceed further in accordance with law.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders for setting aside the docket order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act / II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in un-numbered Crl.M.P.No...... of 2019 and to direct the Special Judge for ST/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to take the complaint of the petitioner on file and proceed in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner has filed a private complaint against the respondents herein, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a staff under the control of the accused 1 and 2, that the petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Assistant in the Chettikulam branch of TNSTC, Nagercoil, that the first respondent was the then Assistant Engineer and was in-charge of the post of Branch Manager and that the second respondent was the then General Manager of TNSTC, Nagercoil.

3. The case of the complainant is that the first respondent, under whom she has been working, has been demanding sexual favour from the petitioner by using his official position, that though the petitioner has lodged complaints to the second respondent and the Managing Director, there was no response and that the respondents 1 and 2 had conspired together and suspended the petitioner from service and issued a charge memo by creating and fabricating the charges against her. It is the further case of the complainant that she has then lodged a complaint before the third respondent police and he refused to issue receipt for the complaint and that since the third respondent has also not taken any action, which is required to take under the law, has been arrayed as third respondent.

4. It is evident from the records that the Judicial Magistrate has taken the complaint on file as Cr.M.P.5951 of 2017 and posted the matter for recording of sworn statement of the complainant, that the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 23.02.2018 and the sworn statements of the witnesses L.W.2 and L.W.4 were recorded on 28.03.2018 and that since the complainant's Counsel has endorsed that they are not having any further witnesses at that stage, the learned Magistrate has adjourned the matter for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

5. It is further evident that after hearing the complainant's side, the case was reserved for orders and on 23.08.2018, the case was suo motu reopened for clarification and that the complaint was adjourned time and again for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act cases / II Additional District Judge, on the point of jurisdiction, since the complainant has levelled charges for the offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order on 12.07.2019 returning the complaint as the same was barred by limitation and the impugned order is extracted hereunder:

“Returned:

12.07.2019 Perused. It has been alleged occurrence occurred in the work spot in the year 2014. The complaint/petition is barred by limitation. Hence, it is returned.”

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has not acceded for the demand of the first respondent, she was slapped with the suspension order and charge memo was issued, that in the year 2016, the accused co