ORDER

The present petition is filed seeking to quash the final report filed in Special S.C.No.20 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court cum Special Court for the exclusive Trial of PCR Act Cases, Sivagangai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant (third respondent) is a practicing Advocate in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and he is the counsel for one Annadurai, who is the brother of the present petitioner. Several civil suits are pending between the said Annadurai and his brother. Since the defacto complainant (Advocate) filed vakalat for Annadurai, the present petitioner abused him in filthy language mentioning his caste name and also attempted to kill him. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirupuvanam Police Station, registered the FIR in Crime No.260 of 2015 against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, on 05.06.2015 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai, after conducting investigation, laid a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupuvam, Sivagangai District, in P.R.C.No.18 of 2020. The Judicial Magistrate after furnishing copies of records to the present petitioner/accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and it came to be numbered as Spl.S.C.No. 20 of 2020.

3. Mr.S.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/accused is a doctor by profession and the defacto complainant had given a false complaint against the present petitioner/accused merely because of the pendency of civil suits between him and his brother and therefore, the final report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai, is liable to be quashed. His further contention is that no occurrence took place as alleged by the defacto complainant and a plain reading of FIR, would clearly indicate the same. It is also his contention that there are no ingredients to make out the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014.

4. Per contra, Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would contend that there are five eye witnesses to the occurrence and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai, after conducting proper investigation, had laid a charge sheet against the present accused and therefore, there is no good ground to quash the final report.

5. At the outset, it may be observed that the defacto complainant, in his FIR as well as in his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement, stated that he was verbally abused by the present petitioner at about 07.00 a.m., on 14.03.2015, based on which, FIR in Crime No.260 of 2015 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station. Subsequently, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub Division, Sivagangai, after obtaining necessary orders from the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, had conducted investigation. The statements of witnesses recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., show that the petitioner had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language by mentioning his caste name. The learned Sessions Judge, PCR Court, had also taken cognizance of the offences. When there is a specifice allegation against the present petitioner attracting the provisions under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Amenment Ordinance, 2014, the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., can be gone into only at the time of trial. In the instant case, all the procedures have been followed before conducting investiation and filing final report. Merely because the first information report and