The judgment established the importance of prior sanction for public servants under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and highlighted the need to consider the motive behind allegations and the potential for misuse of welfare legislation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No.74 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.74 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu as against the petitioners herein for the offences under Section 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506(i) of IPC.)

Common Order:

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records in S.C.No.74 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.74 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu as against the petitioners herein for the offences under Section 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506(i) of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent in all Criminal Original Petitions.

3. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 and they have filed the above individual petitions seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.850 of 2021 / first accused K.Murali is the Assistant General Manager, Flight Dispatch, Operations Department, Air India Ltd. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.852 of 2021 / second accused in the Assistant General Manager, Administration, Operations Department, Air India Ltd. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.845 of 2021 / third accused S.Velraj is the General Manager(O) Coordinating, Operations Department, Air India Ltd.

4. The second respondent / defacto complainant was working as a Senior Manager, Flight Dispatch (Operations) Air India Ltd., Chennai. He belongs to SC Community and he was a Sub-ordinate Officer functioning under the control and directions of the petitioners 1 to 3 / accused 1 to 3. The petitioners are aware of the second respondent''s caste. The third accused harassed the second respondent by providing false and contra informations and caused a disciplinary action taken against the second respondent and that was with an intention to cause unwarranted annoyance and agony in the mind of the second respondent and this is punishable under Section 3(1)(q) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, as amended by an Act of 1 of 2016.

5. On various occasions between 11.04.2018 to 05.02.2019 the accused 1 to 3 by taking advantage of their position as superior officers and who had the knowledge about the community of the second respondent had intentionally insulted and intimidated him. They also humiliated in public by committing caste abuse and that resulted in shivering and palpitation and hence they committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. On the morning of 12.02.2019, when the second respondent was proceedings to the toilet situated at terminal side of the office, the second respondent was intimidated by holding out a threat that ''you are gone''. Hence, A2 committed an offence under Section 506(i) of IPC.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a typical example of how a disgruntled person can take his vengeance against his superior officers by misusing the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989; despite SC/ST Liaison Officer of the Company had given a clean chit for the superior officers and that has been stated by her in the statement before the Investigation Officer, the charge sheet has been filed unminding the same; the allegations are vexatious, inherently improbable, absurd and do not constitute any offence; even 161 Statement of the witnesses do not reveal any commission of the offence for which the petitioners have been charged. The