Rajendran v. State of Kerala & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-09-29
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court declined to interfere with the discharge order; the revision petition is dismissed. The CMP order discharging the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is sustained, and the case will not proceed to trial on these allegations.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajendran

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Palakkad, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam
Aansamma Sukumaran
Kiran A.S

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• L. Rajesh Narayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Seena C., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rajendran, the complainant in SC No.764/2020, challenges a discharge order passed by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Mannarkkad, in CMP 341/2023, discharging accused 2 and 3 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The revision petition (CRL Rev.Pet No. 885 of 2023) contends that offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and under Section 420 IPC were made out, and that the police and court overlooked material facts. The petitioner relies on Swaran Singh v. State to distinguish between a "public place" and a "public view" and argues that the incident occurred in public view with two witnesses allegedly observing it. The case involves an alleged misrepresentation of title in a property sale (Section 420 IPC) and an insult based on caste with an intent to be heard by the public (Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989). The Special Court had found no material showing the insult was audible to the public and held the dispute to arise from a contractual transaction. The High Court, per Justice N. Nagareesh, dismisses the revision, holding that the complaint does not establish a crime under the Act as alleged and that the CMP order was proper. The result is the discharge stands, and the revision petition is rejected.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Section 227 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Public view doctrine: distinction between 'public place' and 'public view' (Swaran Singh v. State, 2008)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner argues that the distinction between 'public place' and 'public view' matters in this case, citing Swaran Singh v. State to show that an incident seen by some members of the public can constitute an offence when it is in public view. He contends that two witnesses allegedly observed the incident, implying a prima facie case under the Act and Section 420 IPC. He asserts that the accused misrepresented title to induce a sale, and that the caste-name hurled at the complainant was intended to be heard by the public beyond the residential compound, satisfying the element of public visibility. The petitioner submits that the CMP court erred in discharging under Section 227 Cr.P.C., and that the matter should proceed to trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the allegations arise from a contractual transaction and there is no material showing that the caste-based insult was heard by the public; the incident, as alleged, does not satisfy the 'public view' requirement for a violation of Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is proper given the lack of prima facie evidence of the offences. The court below correctly held that the facts do not establish a crime under the Act as alleged and that the 420 IPC charge arises from a contractual dispute, with no corroborative proof of public hearing by outsiders.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Swaran Singh v. State	(2008) 8 SCC 435	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss the public view/ public place distinction; the court notes the principle but does not apply it to sustain the offences, ultimately upholding the discharge.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 7TH ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.REV.PET NO. 885 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 764/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL** **OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA)ACT1989, MANNARKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:** **RAJENDRAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O GOPALAN, MANNOTH VEEDU, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678004.** **BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.** **2 AANSAMMA SUKUMARAN AGED 61 YEARS, W/O SUKUMARAN, DEEPAM (H), POTTAKULAM LAKSHMI NAGAR, KAVILPPADU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678012.** **3 KIRAN A.S AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, DEEPAM (H), POTTAKULAM LAKSHMI NAGAR, KAVILPPADU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678012.** **BY ADV.SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.885 of 2023** 2 ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2023 The petitioner, who is the complainant in SC No.764/2020, is aggrieved by the common order dated 20.07.2023 in CMP No.341/2023 passed by the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondents 2, 3 and another accused alleging offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner states that the police did not take any action and it was on the basis of a protest complaint that SC No.764/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 read **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.885 of 2023** 3 with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). 3. The respondents 2 and 3 filed CMP No.341/2023 invoking Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The petitioner filed objections to the discharge petition. According to the petitioner, the ingredients of the offences alleged were satisfied. The Special Court, however, by order dated 20.07.2023 found that there is no sufficient ground to proceed further against the accused and that they are entitled to discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 4. The counsel for the petitioner urged that the distinction between the expressions “public place” and “in any place within public view” has been elucidated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Swaran Singh v. State** [(2008) 8 SCC 435]. Even if remark is made inside a building but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends), then also it will be an offence **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.885 of 2023** 4 since it is in the public view. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident in question took place within public view and the prosecution has cited two witnesses who have allegedly seen the incident. Whether they are friends or relatives of the de facto complainant or persons who have got any affinity towards the de facto complainant or whether they could be considered as “members of the public” are questions to be decided in evidence. The materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused. In the circumstances, the court below committed a grave error in granting discharge to the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent. 7. The case of the petitioner before the court below was that the 3rd accused approached the petitioner with an information that immovable property of the other accused was available for **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.885 of 2023** 5 sale. He made the petitioner to believe that the petitioner had valid title to the property. Based on that, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and handed over ₹5,00,000/- towards sale consideration as advance. Later, the accused refused to execute sale deed stating that they don't have clear title. The accused had knowledge of the defective title. By entering into an agreement for sale of property without clear title, the accused have committed the offence under Section 420 IPC. 8. The petitioner further alleged in his complaint that when the petitioner approached the 1st and 2nd accused on 30.06.2019 at their house, the 2nd accused showered obscene words and the accused called the caste name of the petitioner. The caste name was called with an intention to be heard by the public. Therefore, the accused have committed an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989. 9. The Special Court noted that the issue arises out of a contractual transaction. The Special Court noted that there is no **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.885 of 2023** 6 material to show that calling of caste name by the accused was heard by public. It was on the basis of those findings that the Special Court allowed the CMP and discharged the accused. 10. The argument of the petitioner is that in Annexure-A1 complaint, the petitioner had specifically alleged that the accused called caste name of the petitioner with an intention that it be heard by others outside. Whether persons standing outside are members of the public is to be decided on the basis of analysis of evidence to be adduced. The Special Court therefore committed a grave error in granting discharge. 11. It is to be noted that in Annexure-A1 complaint, the allegation raised by the petitioner is that the accused called caste name with an intention that it will be heard by the public outside the residential compound. I am of the view that the said statement even if accepted to be proved, will not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989. The petitioner has not stated in his complaint that the accused has abused the petitioner in any **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.885 of 2023** 7 place within public view. As regards offence under Section 420 IPC, the Court below rightly held that the allegation of the petitioner in that regard, are arising out of a purely contractual transaction. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the common order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Special Court discharging the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Crl.R.P. therefore fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ams **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.885 of 2023** 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 885/2023** |**REVISION PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES**|**REVISION PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**Annexure A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AS CMP**| ||**NO.13/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SPECIAL**| ||**COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT, MANNARKKAD**| |**Annexure A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR**| ||**DISCHARGE FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND**| ||**3 DATED 9.2.2023**| |**Annexure A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO ANN. A/2**| |**Annexure A4**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED**| ||**20.7.2023 IN CMP 341/2023 IN SC 764/2020**| ||**ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT**| ||**FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT, MANNARKKAD**|