ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the Proceedings in SPL.S.C.No.24 of 2020, on the file of the Special Court for SC and ST (POA) Act, Villupuram, for the offences under Sections 147, 120B, 153A, 504 and 505(1)(c) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 4(1) and 6 of Protection of Civil Rights Act in Crime No.582 of

2019 dated 01.11.2019.

2.1. A complaint has been registered for the incident that was purported to have taken place on 01.11.2019 at about 07.30 A.M, based on the statement of the de-facto complainant who, with the help of the one Thangaraj, that he recorded a video in his mobile phone. The statement of the de-facto complainant and the said witness Thangaraj is that they both went to Ramani Grocery Store, situated at Nayinaar Street, where, the 6th and 7th petitioners, the owners of the grocery store, refused to sell groceries. The 7th petitioner is purported to have replied to the de- facto complainant by refusing to sell groceries and further alleged to have stated that if they sell the groceries to the de-facto complainant, the 6th and 7th petitioners have to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which will be imposed by the Ethanemili village people, who have conducted a meeting on 31.10.2019 at 09.00 P.M headed by the 1st to 5th petitioners herein. Due to the decision of the said villagers proposing to impose fine, the 6th and 7th petitioners, who are the owners of grocery shop, refused to sell their groceries to the de-facto complainant and the witness Thangaraj, who belong to Scheduled Caste community.

2.2. Other witnesses namely Sathya, Yegavalli, Amutha and Muthu, who were regularly supplying cow milk for the past five years to Thirumala Dairy Co-operative Society, where the 10th petitioner herein as the President of the Co-operative Society, alleged to have denied receiving Forty (40) Litres of milk from the above said witnesses. The

11th petitioner herein, a hotel owner, refused to sell tea to the Adi- Dravidar community people of the Ethanemili Village. For all the alleged offences, a complaint came to be registered.

2.3. Based on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, a case has been registered under Sections 147, 120B, 153A, 504 and 505(1)(c) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 4(1) and 6 of Protection of Civil Rights Act in Crime No.582 of 2019 dated 01.11.2019.

2.4. After registration of case, investigation was undertaken by the investigating officer and a Final Report dated 10.12.2019 was filed by the 1st respondent under Sections 147, 120B, 153A, 504 and 505(1)(c) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no specific allegation in the complaint or any specific over tact as against the petitioners to attract the offences as alleged by the prosecution. The present complaint has been filed to hurt vengeance against the petitioners for the incident which was took place on 17.08.2019, when the 2nd respondent and his friends celebrated their political party leader's birthday and they placed a flag post, banners in the village, which was opposed by the petitioners. Thus, the 2nd respondent said to have made complaint and the said dispute was mediated and solved by the Tahsildar, Gingee on 30.10.2019. He further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed only on the basis of the electronic evidence, but the respondent has purposefully failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.

4. Thus, it is clear that as per the provisions, the conditions mentioned have to be fulfilled and the