Initiation of criminal proceedings requires clear, specific allegations; lack of details can undermine legal action.

O R D E R

The accused Nos.1 to 3 in R.C No.20/2019 on the files of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them pursuant to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 21.12.2019 taking the protest complaint filed by the first respondent to files and issuing summons to the petitioners herein.

2. The petitioners and the first respondent are neighbours who maintained grudge with each other in connection with property disputes as well as previous instances of criminal offences. In an earlier case against the petitioners 1 and 2 relating to verbally abusing the first respondent by calling caste name, the Sessions Court, Ernakulam conducted trial and acquitted the petitioners 1 and 2 as per the judgment dated 27.05.2008 in S.C No.348/2007. The incident in the aforesaid case was said to have happened on 14.03.2006. Incident relating to the present case is said to have occurred on a day in the year 2015. The allegation against the petitioners is that with the intention to drive away the de facto complainant/first respondent, a lady belonging to the Scheduled Caste community from her habitat, the petitioners verbally abused her by calling caste name and criminally intimidated her by saying that they will not permit the de facto complainant to survive at that place. It is further alleged that the petitioners physically assaulted the differentially abled daughter of the first respondent. A complaint which the first respondent/de facto complainant preferred before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam in connection with the aforesaid incident was investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mattancherry, and on 09.05.2016 a refer report was filed reporting that the allegations were false. It is against the aforesaid refer report, which the Sessions Court, Ernakulam received to files as R.C No.20/2019, that the de facto complainant preferred a protest complaint. The learned Sessions Judge conducted enquiry in the aforesaid protest complaint by examining the first respondent/de facto complainant and one witness as PW1 and PW2 and found that it revealed sufficient materials for issuing process against the petitioners in connection with the commission of offences under Section s 323 , 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioners approached this Court with this petition to quash the proceedings against them.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the checkered history of mutual rivalries right from the year 2006, between the petitioners and the de facto complainant who were neighbours. It is also submitted that the criminal cases which the petitioners 1 and 2 and the de facto complainant instituted against each other during the year 2006 were compromised in the year 2008 leading to the acquittal of the accused in the respective cases. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the civil issues which arose in between the parties in connection with the shifting of a public tap and the construction of a new house by the de facto complainant with its staircase protruding into the property of the petitioners, are the root cause of the institution of the present complaint against them without any basis.

5. Be that as it may, it is not necessary to delve in detail on the past history of mutual rivalry and litigations between the parties for deciding the question whether the impugn