Abdul Salam O.A. vs State of Kerala & others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.2265 OF 2020(C)** **CRIME NO.253/2019 OF Chittarikal Police Station , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED** **ABDUL SALAM O.A. AGED 52 YEARS S/O. O. M. ABDUL KHADAR, ODAPLACKAL HOUSE, POST KANNIVAYAL, MUNAYAMKUNNU, VIA CHERUPUZHA, KASARGODE - 670 511.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH**| ||**COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.**| |**2**|**DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE**| ||**SPECIAL MOBILE SQUAD, KASARGODE - 671 123.**| |**3**|**RAHUL P. S.**| ||**S/O. SANKARAN, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, NELLIKKAMALA,**| ||**PALAVAYAL GRAMAM, KASARGODE - 671 121.**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.C.K.PRASAD, PP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2020, THE COURT ON 16.3.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 2 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** ************************ Crl.M.C.No.2265 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2020 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.253/2019 of Chittarikkal police station under Sections 341, 324, 308 and 294(b) read with 34 I.P.C and also under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The case against the petitioner and the other accused has been registered on the basis of the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant. 3. As per Annexure-A1 first information report and Annexure-A1(a) the first information statement produced by the petitioner, the name of the de facto complainant is Raju, S/o.Sankaran. However, the petitioner has impleaded one Rahul as the third respondent in the petition. Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 3 4. The material averments in Annexure-A1 first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant are as follows: The de facto complainant and his coworkers by name Kunjikrishnan and Kunjikannan are persons who belong to Scheduled Caste. On 14.11.2019, the de facto complainant and his co-workers Kunjikrishnan and Kunjikannan went to the property of Suharabi for plucking coconuts. When they were returning from the property on the motorcycles driven by Shemeem and Shebeel and when they reached near the house of the first accused, he called the de facto complainant to his house. When the de facto complainant refused to go to his house, the first accused approached him and caught hold of his hand and pulled his hand. Then Kunjikrishnan and Kunjikannan came and rescued the de facto complainant. The first accused then abused the de facto complainant and his co-workers by calling them by their caste name and he used obscene words to their annoyance. The stone thrown by the first accused hit on the leg of the de facto complainant, causing hurt to him. When the Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 4 de facto complainant and his co-workers reached the tarred road, the second accused came with a chopper and tried to cut them with the chopper. 5. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the first accused in the case for quashing Annexure-A1 first information report and Annexure-A1(a) first information statement, on the ground that the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant does not contain necessary averments to attract the offences alleged against him. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations raised against the petitioner in the first information statement are not sufficient to attract the offences alleged against him. _Per contra,_ learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the averments in the first information statement would, prima facie, reveal commission of the offences alleged against the accused and that it would not be proper for this Court Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 5 to quash the proceedings at the threshold without granting an opportunity to the investigating officer to find out the truth of the allegations by conducting investigation in the case. 8. The averments in the first information statement have been narrated earlier. The aforesaid averments or allegations in the first information statement, prima facie, reveal commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 308 and 294(b) read with 34 I.P.C by the accused. 9. Section 3(1)(s) of the Act states that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view shall be punished. 10. There is a specific allegation against the petitioner in the first information statement that he called the de facto complainant and his co-workers by their caste name. The persons by name Shebeel and Shemeem, who were with the de facto complainant, had allegedly heard the petitioner abusing the de facto complainant in such a manner. The first accused has Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 6 committed such act in a public place and in the presence of Shebeel and Shemeem and therefore, such act was allegedly committed within public view. Prima facie, the aforesaid allegation against the petitioner would attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act. 11. Section 3(2)(va) of the Act states that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence specified in the Schedule of the Act, against a person or a property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, or such property belongs to such member, shall be punished with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine. 12. In the instant case, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he caught hold the hand of the de facto complainant and pulled him and thereby he wrongfully restrained him. There is also allegation that the stone thrown by the petitioner hit on the leg of the de facto complainant causing Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 7 hurt to him. These allegations, prima facie, constitute the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C. The offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C are included in the Schedule of the Act. It follows that, prima facie, the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the Act is also committed by the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge that the de facto complainant was a person who belongs to any Scheduled Caste and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the Act will not lie against him. 14. Of course, in order to attract the offences under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, it has to be shown that the accused committed the offences against a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or the property belonging to such person with the knowledge that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. 8 Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 15. In the instant case, the averments in the first information statement would show that the petitioner had knowledge that the de facto complainant is a person who belongs to scheduled caste. After the amendment of the Act, which came into force on 26.01.2016, mere knowledge of the accused that the person upon whom the offence is committed belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, is sufficient (See **Ashrafi v. State of U.P : AIR 2017 SC 5819** ). In the instant case, there is a specific allegation that the petitioner called the de facto complainant and his co-workers by their caste name and abused them. Therefore, it cannot be found that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the de facto complainant was a person who belonged to Scheduled Caste. 16. There are no sufficient grounds to nip in the bud the investigation of the case. The petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds to terminate the investigation of the case at the threshold by quashing Annexure-A1 first information report. Whether the allegations against the petitioner are false or not Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 9 can be ascertained only after completing the investigation of the case. The petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr.. Crl.M.C.No.2265/2020 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE A1** **TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.253/2019 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE.** **ANNEXURE A1 (a) TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO.253/2019 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.150/2019 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KANJANGAD.** **ANNEXURE A3 (a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE ST. SEBASTIANS HOSPITAL, KAKKAYAMCHAL, CHERUPUZHA.** ....