Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41700
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ANEESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7598/2023
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SRI.LIBIN STANLEY, SMT.SAIPOOJA, SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL, SMT.R.GAYATHRI, SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA, SRI.ALWIN JOSEPH, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN(K/189/2004.), SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.(K/134/2003), SRI.U.M.HASSAN(K/00033/2016), SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY(K/000638/2018), SMT.DEVI.R.SENS(K/000671/2016), SMT.RAJALAKSHMI R.(K/1446/2020), SMT.SARITHA K.(K/001422/2021)
Knowledge of caste identity is presumed in offences under the SC/ST Act, and prima facie offences under IPC and SC/ST Act were established.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b) and 506 - Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(va) - Quashing of FIR and Charge Sheet sought - Allegations of abuse and threats to members of Scheduled Caste - Court held that prima facie offences under IPC and SC/ST Act are made out - Knowledge of caste identity is presumed in offences under SC/ST Act - Quashment prayer dismissed. (Paras 2, 5, 12, 12)
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 seeking the following prayers:
“i. Call for the records in connection with Annexure-1 F.I.R and Annexure-2 Charge Sheet in connection with Crime No.751/2021 of Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur District and quash the same as illegal.
and
ii. Such other order or decision which this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.”
2. In this matter the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short 'the IPC ') as well as under Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST (POA) Act')
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.
4. The prosecution allegation is that the accused who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, abused respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are members of Scheduled Caste Community, in public place and also threatened them stating that he would cut their hands and legs. The occurrence was alleged on a day during the month of July 2021.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act is not made out prima facie since there is no allegation that the petitioner herein abused respondents 3 and 4 by calling their caste name. Further offence under Sections 294 (b) and 506 of the IPC also would not get attracted as the same are also not made out prima facie.
6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case is foisted on getting Annexure-5 notice dated 07.10.2021 demanding Rs.1,06,800/- as the amount due to the petitioner as part of house construction carried out by the petitioner for and on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4. According to him the said notice was accepted as on 12.10.2021. Thereafter, this crime was registered on 04.12.2021 as a retaliatory shield to avoid payment of the amount claimed as per the notice and to wreak vengeance. He also pointed out that thereafter the petitioner filed OS No.1200/2021 before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda restraining further construction of the building without terminating the agreement in favour of the petitioner as on 15.12.2021.
7. Whereas it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 that the allegation which led to registration of this crime was during the month of July 2021 therefore, notice issued subsequently as Annexure-5 has no relevance in this matter. According to him, prosecution records would prima facie show the ingredients to attract the offenes and in such case quashment would necessarily fail.
8. Going through the statements of respondents 3 and 4/witness Nos. 1 and 2 there is allegation that the petitioner used to abuse them in public place and also threatened them stating that if they enter into the house without re-paying the amount due to him, he would cause fracture to their hands and legs.
9. As per the prosecution allegations as well as the case put up by the learned counsel for the petitioner, house construction of respondent 3 and 4 was entrusted to the petitioner and there arose dispute regarding non payment of balance amount of house construction. Thereby the petitioner issued notice as Annexure-A5 on 07.10.2021 and the same was accepted on 12.10.2021. Thus crime was registered on 04.12.2021 alleging the overt acts which occurred in the month of July, 2021. However, prosecution materials in the form of statements of witnesses 1 and 2 would show prima facie offences under Sections 294 (b) as well as 506 of IPC . Since it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act made out from the records as there is no a
