Allegations under the SC/ST Act require specific actions to humiliate a member in public view; absent such, prosecution is not sustainable.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No. 70 of 2014, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai.

2.The crux of the complaint is that on 18.04.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., all the accused persons along with 50 others had trespassed in the Agricultural land belonging to the defacto complainant's uncle and abused and insulted by naming his Caste and damaged Bero, car, Grinder and Motor worth about Two Lakhs. It is further alleged that all the accused persons closed the Well by pouring the sand and looted 10 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4, they owned agricultural land comprising in Survey Nos.49/1, 52/3A, 51/7, 52/1 ad-measuring 5 acres and 8 cents with electrical connection in S.C.No.139 situated in Keezhaurapanur Village, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. The first petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. In respect of very same property, the defacto complainant's uncle claimed tenancy right before the Tahsildar, but the same was dismissed and ordered in favour of the first petitioner herein. Thereafter, the first petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.105 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam, for injunction, alleging that the uncle of the defacto complainant along with others have trespassed into the disputed property and destroyed all the Agricultural crops and they also attacked the first petitioner, on 16.04.2012, with the help of the others. Therefore, the first petitioner also lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.254 of 2012, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 447, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. In fact, the uncle of the defacto complainant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Due to the said complaint, the second respondent / defacto complainant, on 18.04.2012 along with six other named accused persons trespassed into the disputed property and also attempted to murder the first petitioner herein. In order to escape from the second respondent / defacto complainant, he went to the Motor room and locked the defacto complainant and others. Even then, they broken the door and attacked the first petitioner herein and as such, he sustained injuries on all over the body. Therefore, again, he lodged a complaint in Crime No.261 of 2012, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, 379 (NP) and 506(ii) I.P.C. as against the second respondent and six others. Therefore, the present complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners is only to wreck vengeance against them. No occurrence was took place, on 18.04.2012, as alleged by the defacto complainant / second respondent herein. He would further submit that even according to the defacto complainant, he had seen the occurrence from the distance away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, there is absolutely no ingredients to attract the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act. He would further submit that admittedly there is a tenancy dispute in respect of the said property between the uncle of the defacto complainant and the first petitioner herein. Therefore, except the first petitioner, others have no motive against the defacto complainant to commit the alleged offence. He would further submit that the disputed property is in possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner herein and as such, there is no question of trespass into the disputed property. In fact, in the counter case registered in Crime No.261 of 2012, as against the second respondent and six others, in which, they pleaded guilty and also paid the fine. He would further submit that even according to the defacto complainant, the entire allegatio