Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 429
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
V.DHAYANITHI – Appellant
Versus
S.BABU – Respondent
Intent and knowledge of the victim's caste are essential for SC/ST Act applicability; without them, charges cannot stand.
Headnote:
Atrocities - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) - The court quashed the addition of SC/ST Act charges due to lack of intention or evidence linking the accused's actions to the victim's caste identity.
Fact of the Case:
A defacto complainant borrowed money from the petitioners and later alleged misuse of cheques and exorbitant interest. Following a second complaint, police added charges under the SC ST Act, which the petitioners challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The initial complaint lacked caste-related allegations, and the subsequent charges lacked sufficient evidence or intention indicating the petitioners acted against the complainant due to his caste identity.
Issues: Whether the addition of charges under the SC/ST Act was justified given the circumstances of the case and absence of intent linked to caste.
Ratio Decidendi: Violations under the SC/ST Act require proof of intent; mere association with a complainant from a designated community is insufficient to invoke its provisions.
Final Decision: The addition of SC/ST Act charges was quashed, and the case will proceed under the original charges.
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the further report that was filed by the respondent Police wherein the offences under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(p) of the SC and ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 were added apart from the existing offence under Section 506 (1) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of The Prohibition Of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3.
3.The first respondent/ defacto complainant gave a complaint to the effect that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioners at the rate of Rs.5/- per month for every Rs.100/-. Thereafter, the defacto complainant borrowed a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 2020. He also agreed to repay the amount within a period of four months. While borrowing this amount, the signature of the defacto complainant was taken in blank papers and cheques were also taken as security. The further case of the defacto complainant is that he has repaid back the entire amount with interest and inspite of the same, the petitioners were insisting for paying exorbitant interest. They also proceeded further to misuse the cheques that were given as security and initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the defacto complainant questioned the petitioners regarding the same, he was also threatened with dire consequences. In the light of this complaint given by the defacto complainant, an F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.1356 of 2020 on 22.11.2020. It must be noted that the said complaint confined itself to the above allegations and nothing more.
4.The respondent Police commenced the investigation and filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.30 of 2022.
5.The defacto complainant seems to have given yet another complaint on 18.03.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur District with an allegation that the entire money transaction was done by the accused persons after knowing that the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and hence, requested for conducting further investigation in this case. Since no action was taken, the defacto complainant approached this Court and filed Crl.O.P.No.23914 of 2021 seeking for appropriate directions. This Court disposed of this petition by order dated 15.12.2021 and this Court directed the respondent Police to deal with the complaint dated 18.03.2021 and if any case is made out, directed a final report to be filed within a period of four weeks.
6.Pursuant to the above order, an application came to be filed by the defacto complainant before the Court below under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for a direction to conduct further investigation. This petition was ordered by the Court below in C.M.P.No.2822 of 2022 by order dated 19.09.2022 and a direction was given to the respondent Police to further investigate the case and to alter the Sections and file a further report.
7.The further investigation resulted in an alteration report filed before the said Court for trial of case under the SC and ST Act. By virtue of this further report, the previous charges were altered as Section 506 (1) of I.P.C., Section 4 of The Prohibition Of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(p) of the SC and ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act'].
8.The further report that was filed before the Court below by adding the offence under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(p) of the Act has been put to challenge in the present petition.
9.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners/ accused had rendered financial assistance to the defacto complainant fully knowing th
