The court quashed the charge sheet due to lack of evidence and found the accusations to be motivated by political vendetta, highlighting the importance of protecting individuals from retaliatory legal actions.

ORDER :

S.SRIMATHY, J.

The present petition is filed to quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.95 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli, arising out of Crime No. 37 of 2023 on the file of the Puliyangudi Police Station, Tenkasi District, registered on 03.02.2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 323, 355, 506(i) of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2023 at about 2.45pm, when the defacto complainant / 2^nd respondent was in duty, who is a site supervisor in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme (MGNREGS), at Thargapuram Village, the petitioner came to the spot and dashed the defacto complainant, which was questioned by the defacto complainant. The petitioner allegedly scolded her with filthy language and illtreated her caste name, punched the defacto complainant and attached her which resulted in losing the gold stud. On raising alarm the people working nearby rushed to the spot and shouted at the petitioner and the petitioner fled away from the spot. Hence based on the complaint FIR was registered, charge sheet was filed. The petitioner is seeking to quash the charge sheet.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a social activist & whistleblower and known for his active participation in issues concerning mines and minerals scam, temple land encroachment and accountability, transparency in public administration at grassroots level. The petitioner is not motivated by any political party and he has no personal interest, but by integrity and public conscience he has initiated proceedings. On 10.11.2022 it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that one Subbulakshmi, a site supervisor is operating in MGNREGS was working for more than 7 months with the influential of Panchayat Union Secretary namely Krishnakumar, but the tenure is maximum three months only. Further the father-in-law of Krishnakumar, namely Ramachandran who is having land has leased the land for agricultural works. In order to carry the agricultural operations in the said land, the said Subbulakshmi along with the Panchayat Member, namely Murugalakshmi (who is none other than Krishnakumar’s wife) had colluded to misuse the workers of the 100 days scheme and engaged them for their agricultural operations in the private land. The petitioner had taken photographs of engaging the 100 days scheme workers in private land and filed W.P.(MD)No.28058 of 2022 and the same was allowed with several directions for effective implementation of the scheme and also directions were issued from preventing such irregularities. Aggrieved by the said order and as counter blast, the present case has been filed falsely implicating the petitioner. Further the aforesaid aggrieved persons were made witnesses only to fabricate evidence and throttle and threaten the petitioner to restrain from filing PIL. The present criminal prosecution was initiated against the petitioner is a product of political vendetta and retaliatory malice, instituted solely because the petitioner exposed the misuse of public funds and irregularities in the implementation of the MGNREGS scheme hence permitting such prosecution to continue would result in gross abuse of the criminal justice and violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the section 294(b) of IPC is not applicable to the present case. The said section would be attracted if a person sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words,