Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4235 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 04.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4235 of 2022

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3017 of 2022

1. Karuppaiah

2. Sridhar

...Petitioners 1 & 2/

Accused No. 1 & 2

Vs.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Alangudi,

Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No. 02 of 2014)

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vadakadu Police Station,

Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No. 02 of 2014)

...1^st & 2^nd Respondent/Complainant

3. C.Subramaniyan

...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to the charge

sheet in Spl.S.C.No. 58 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for

the exclusive trail of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai in Crime

No. 02 of 2014 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same

as illegal as against these petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.C.Maniyarasu

For R1 & R2

: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to quash the

proceedings in Spl.S.C.No. 58 of 2019, on the file of the Special

Court for the exclusive trail of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes

(POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai in Crime No. 02 of 2014 on the file of

the second respondent.

2.The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in

Special.S.C.No.58 of 2019, on the file of the Special Court for

exclusive trail of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai arising out

of the Crime No. 02 of 2014 on the file of the second respondent for

the offences under Sections 147, ,148, 323, 294 (b) and 506(2) of

1/7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4235 of 2022

IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and

Loss) (PPDL) Act, 1992

r/w Section 3(1)(X) Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the third respondent

belongs to Hindu Paraiyar community. The accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5

to 10 belong to Hindu Kallar Community and the fourth accused

belongs to Hindu Yadhavar community. On 01.01.2014, the area

residents of the defacto complainant had celebrated New Year in

front of their community hall. The defacto complainant had watched

that, while being so, the third accused had attacked the defacto

complainant's head with a wooden log and caused simple injury in his

right forehand. The first accused had dashed one Vignesh by his two

wheeler bearing registration No.TN 55 B 9167 and caused grievous

injury in his right forehand. All the accused had given life threat

to the people and the second accused had damaged a house door worth

about Rs.3,100/- and too damaged a street light.

4.Initially, the case was taken by the Principal District Judge

in S.C.No.104 of 2014 since the NBW was pending as against the

petitioners, the case was split up against the petitioner in

S.C.No.216 of 2017. Even before commencement of trial, the defacto

complainant died and all the witnesses PW1 and PW6 were treated as

hostile by the prosecution. The investigation was examined as PW 7

and he had admitted that there was six days delay in lodging the

complaint and the delay was not sufficiently explained and as such

all the accused were acquitted in S.C.No.104 of 2014. Since

S.C.No.216 of 2017 was transferred to the Special Court for trail of

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai from

the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai on 04.10.2019 and it was

renumbered as Spl.S.C.No.58 of 2019. Now the petitioners are

seeking the same benefit as given for other caste persons in

S.C.No.104 of 2016.

5.In this regard it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of

this Court in (2018) 2 MWN (Criminal) 442 in the case Anbuselvam

Vs. State reads as follows:

'7.The learned