Rajeswaran Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Rasheena

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3839 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 147/2018 OF SPECIAL COURT ``` ``` (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANANTHAVADI ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 RAJESWARAN NAIR`** - **`S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, WORKING AS SENIOR CLERK, O/O.WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILDLIFE DIVISION, SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592.`** - **`2 SUJIL P.`** - **`S/O. SURENDRAN, WORKING AS CLERK, O/O.WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILDLIFE DIVISION, SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592.`** - **`3 NIDHIN N.H.`** - **`S/O. HARIDAS, WORKING AS TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE, O/O.WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILDLIFE DIVISION, SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592.`** ``` BY ADV ``` ``` SRI.M.P.PRAKASH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.`** ## **`2 RASHEENA`** ``` W/O. MOHANDAS M.R., U.D.TYPIST, O/O. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NORTH WAYANAD DIVISION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. PIN-671 121. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S(FOR R1 AND R2) SRI.NOUSHAD K.A-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 2 : ## **ORDER** Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2023 The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.138/2018 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad District, which is now pending as S.C No.147/2018 before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1989 Act’). Crime No.138/2018 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the 2[nd] respondent. 2. The 2[nd] respondent was working as a U.D Typist in the office of the Wildlife Warden, Wayanad Division. The 2[nd] respondent and petitioners 1 and 2 were occupying adjacent Government quarters for more than two years. By Annexure-A3 proceedings of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kannur, the 2[nd] respondent was transferred to North Wayanad Division Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 3 : and she was relieved on 25.05.2017. However, the 2[nd] respondent sought for continuing in the quarters allotted to her. 3. There were proceedings initiated at the instances of the 2[nd] respondent before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram District, which culminated in Annexure-A7 order dated 17.10.2017 in O.A No.1853/2017, wherein the representation given by the 2[nd] respondent (Annexure-A17) was directed to be considered by the Government. 4. It appears that a state level sports meet for employees of the Forest Department was held on 09.11.2017. According to the 2[nd] respondent, on 09.11.2017, the petitioners who were interested to get the Government quarters occupied by the 2[nd] respondent, had abused the 2[nd] respondent and called her by her caste name and also threatened the 2[nd] respondent by stating that neither she nor her husband Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 4 : [who was working in the office of the District Superintendent of Police] could do anything against the petitioners. It is alleged that by the aforesaid acts the petitioners have committed the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the initiation of proceedings and the culmination of the investigation by filing a Final Report, which has been taken on file as S.C.No.147/2018 before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is submitted that even according to the complaint of the 2[nd] respondent/ _de-facto_ complainant, there were some disputes regarding the vacation of quarters by the 2[nd] respondent, following her transfer from Wayanad on 25.07.2017. It is submitted that the documents produced along with the Crl.M.C Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 5 : would indicate that there were proceedings before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal regarding the transfer of the 2[nd] respondent, a reading of which also suggests that apart from challenging the order of transfer, the 2[nd] respondent also wanted to continue in the Government quarters allotted to her. It is submitted that a reading of the complaint in writing given by the 2[nd] respondent suggest that even according to the 2[nd] respondent/ _de-facto_ complainant the dispute between the petitioners and the _de-facto_ complainant were on account of the fact that the 1[st] petitioner had issued a notice (in discharge of his official duties) to the 2[nd] respondent calling upon her to vacate the staff quarters occupied by her, following her transfer referred to above. It is submitted that the husband of the 2[nd] respondent is a staff attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Wayanad and he had threatened the petitioners that they would be implicated in some criminal cases unless they withdraw from attempts to get the Government quarters occupied Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 6 : by the 2[nd] respondent vacated. It is submitted that there was a substantial delay in filing the complaint. It is submitted that though the incident is stated to have occurred on 09.11.2017, the complaint was filed before the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission only on 24.11.2017, which ultimately led to the registration of the FIR on 01.03.2018. It is submitted that the allegation in the complaint of the 2[nd] respondent is that the petitioners were in an inebriated condition while abusing the 2[nd] respondent as above. It is submitted that since there was no attempt to have a medical examination of the petitioners on 09.11.2017, the petitioners have even lost their chance to prove that they were not in an inebriated condition on 09.11.2017. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted as true, no offence under the 1989 Act has been made out. It is submitted that the proceedings against the petitioners are clearly an abuse of process of law and therefore, this Court in exercise of Jurisdiction Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 7 : under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be justified in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. The learned Counsel appearing before the 2[nd] respondent vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations in the complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent clearly indicate that the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of 1989 Act are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the attempt of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to project that the filing of complaint is an abuse of process of law and only intended to prejudice the petitioners for having required the 2[nd] respondent to vacate the quarter, cannot be accepted, even for a moment. It is submitted that the 2[nd] respondent was constrained to approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal as the transfer of the 2[nd] respondent was against the norms and the attempt to evict the 2[nd] respondent from staff quarters was also against the law. It is submitted that the fact that the Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 8 : husband of the 2[nd] respondent is a staff of the office of Superintendent of Police, Wayanad, is no ground to hold that the proceedings against the petitioners were _mala fide_ and were taken only because they had been instrumental in requiring the 2[nd] respondent to vacate the quarter. It is submitted that the contentions taken for the petitioners by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are purely matters for evidence and it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent also contended that the ground taken in the memorandum of Crl.M.C. that a preliminary enquiry had not been conducted as required by the judgment of Supreme Court in _**Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another** (2018) 6 SCC 454_ cannot any longer been pressed into service as the said judgment had been recalled in the judgment _**Union of India v. State of Maharashtra and Others** (2019) 5_ Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 9 : _KHC 57,_ following the amendments to the 1989 Act and by the insertion of Section 18A into the provisions of the Act. 7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor referred to the First Information Statement and also the Final Report to state that going by the First Information Report and the Final Report, the petitioners have clearly committed the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that there is no ground made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. A reading of the complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent indicates that the incident alleged against the petitioners took place on 09.11.2017. There is no real explanation in the complaint as to why the 2[nd] respondent has waited till 24.11.2017 to forward a complaint to the Scheduled Castes and Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 10 : Scheduled Tribes Commission alleging that the petitioners had committed the offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the 1989 Act. That apart, there is clear indication in the complaint forwarded by the 2[nd] respondent that there were some pre-existing disputes regarding the vacation of Government quarters by the 2[nd] respondent and in respect of which the 1[st] petitioner had issued certain notices to the 2[nd] respondent. Cumulatively, the allegations against the petitioners and the aforesaid facts leads me to conclude that there is merit in the contention taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The allegation of the 2[nd] respondent in the complaint filed by her is as follows:- "സംസ്ഥാനവനംകായികമേള 2017 - 09 .11. 2017 ന് സർക്കിൾതലസെ ക്ഷൻട്രയൽസുൽത്താൻബത്തേരിയിൽവെച നടത്തിയിരുന്ന വേളയിൽന നോർത വയനാട് ഡിവിഷനിലെ . പ്രതിനിധീകരിച്ചുസ്റ്റാഫായഞാനുംപങ്കെടുത്തിരുന്നു ഉച്ചയക്കഒരുമണിക ഞാനും മറ ഡിവിഷനുകളിലെ സ്റ്റാഫുകളും ഒരുമിച്ചു ഭക്ഷണം കഴിച്ചുകകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുമ്പ ോൾവയനാട്വൈൽഡ്ലൈഫ്ഡിവിഷനിലെ . ., . സീനിയർക്ലർക്കായശ്രീ രാജേശ്വരൻനായർഎൻ ശ്രീ സുജിൽ പി., ക്ലാർക , ശ്രീ .നിതിൻ, ഡ്രാഫറ്റ‌സ്മാൻ (ദിവസക്കൂലി ) എന്നിവർ Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 11 : ചേർന മദ്യപിച പാരിസരബബോധമില്ലാതെ എന്റെഭർത്താവിനെയും എന്നെയുംമറ സ്റ്റാഫുകളുടെ മുമ്പിൽവെചചഅസഭ്യംപറയുകയുംഒരു മോഹനൻ, സി.പി.ഐ. , നേതാവ്അമ്പലവയൽ വയനാട്വൈൽഡ് ലൈഫ് ഡിവിഷനെതിരെ പരാതിക കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും പരാതി കൊടുത് ് എന്റെ ഭർത്താവായ മോഹൻദാസ് ആണെ ന്നും പരാതിയിൽശരിക്കുമുള്ളപേരുവെക്കാത്തവൻഅവന്റെജാതിസ്വഭാവം കാണിച്ചതാണെ ന്നും എനിക ഈ പരാതിയിൽ പറയാൻ പറ്റാത്ത പറഞ തരത്തിലുള്ള സംസ്കാരമില്ലാത്ത വാക്ുൾ എന്റെ മനസികാവസ്ഥയെ യും എന്റെ വ്യക്തിത്വത്തെയും പരിഹസിക്കുന്ന , രീതിയിൽസംസാരിക്ുയുണ്ടായി ഇനിവയനാട്വൈൽഡ്ലൈഫ് ഡിവിഷനിൽഒരുഅധകൃതവർഗ്ഗക്കാരിയെ ടൈപ്പിസ്റ്റായിനിയമിക്കാൻ ഞങ്ങൾസമ്മതിക്ുയില്ലായെ ന്നുംഈപരാതിഅയച്ചമോഹനൻ ന വിചാരിച്ചാൽഞങ്ങളെ ഒന്നുംചെയ്യാൻപറ്റുകയില്ലായെ നഞങ്ങളളോട് ഞങ്ങളുടെ ഡി.എഫ്.ഒ സാജൻ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും, ഒരു പട്ടികജാതിക്കാരനായമോഹനൻഅമ്പലവയൽവിചാരിച്ചാൽഒന്നും ചെയ്യാൻ കഴിയില്ലായെ ന്നും എനിക ഈ പരാതിയിൽ എഴുതാൻ കഴിയാത്തവിധത്തിലുള്ള അസഭ്യ വാക്ുൾ എന്റെ ഭർത്താവിനെപ്പറ്റിയും എന്നെപ്പറ്റിയും ഇവർ മൂന്നുപേരും അവിടെ . ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നവരുടെ മുമ്പിൽവെചചപറയുകയുണ്ടായി ഇവർമൂന്നുപേരും പറയുന്ന പരാതി 03.11.2017 ന് ബഹു.ഫ്ളയിഗ് സ്‌ക്വാഡ് ഫോറസ്ററ് ഓഫീസർ, റെയ്ഞ കൽപ്പറ്റഎന്നെകാണിക്ുയും ാണ്. ഈ ഞാൻഅതിന്മറുപടിമൊഴിഎഴുതിക കൊടുക്ുയുംചെയ് പരാതിയിൽപറയുന്നമോഹനൻഅമ്പലവയൽഎന്നയാൾഎന്റെ . . ഭർത്താവല്ല എന്റെഭർത്താവ്ഇങ്ങിനെ ഒരുപരാതിഎഴുതിയിട്ടില്ല എന്റെ ഭർത്താവിന്റെ പേര് മോഹൻദാസ് എം.ആർ.,കൃഷ്ണമന്ദിരം, അമ്പലവയൽ എന്നാണ്. ഇവർ ഒരുപാട് പ്രാവശ്യം എന്റെ . ഭർത്താവിനെ അസഭ്യവാക്ുൾ പറയുകയുണ്ടായി മൂന്നു പേരും . മദ്യലഹരിയിലായിരുന്നു നോർത വയനാട് ഡിവിഷനെ പ്രതിനിധികരിച കായികമേളയിൽപങ്കെടുക്കുവാൻവന്നജീവനക്കാരിയായഎന്നെമറ്റുള്ള ഡിവിഷനിലെയും മറ്റു ജില്ലകളിലെയും ജീവനക്കാരുടെ മുമ്പിൽ വെച അധിക്ഷേപിച്ചുസംസാരിച്ചതുംഎന്റെജാതിപ്പേര്വിളിചചഅധിക്ഷേപിച്ചതും എന്നെമോശക്കാരിയായിചിത്രീകരിക്ുയുംചെയ്തിരിക്ുയാണ്. ഇത് . എന്നെ മാനസികമായും ശാരീരികമായും തളർത്തിയിരിക്ുയാണ് ഞാൻവയനാട്വൈൽഡ്ലൈഫ്ഡിവിഷനിൽനിനനസ്ഥലംമാറി പോയതിനുശേ ഷംഞാൻഇ്പ്പോൾതാമസിക്കുന്നവയനാട്വൈൽഡ് Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 12 : ലൈഫ് ഡിവിഷനു കീഴിലുള്ള ഡിപ്പാർട്മെന ക്വാർട്ടേഴ്‌സ് ഒഴിയുന്നതിനുള്ളന നോട്ടീസ് തരുകയും ഞാൻ ഇതിനെതിരെ . . ബഹു അഡ്മിനിസ്‌ട്രേറ്റീവ്ട്രിബ്യുണലിനെ സമീപിക്ുയുംചെയ്‌തിരുന്നു കൊണ ഈകാരണംക ടക്വാർട്ടേഴ്‌സിന്റെസെ ക്ഷൻകൈകാര്യംചെയ്യുന്ന . നായർക എ സെ ക്ഷൻ ക്ലാർക്കായ ശ്രീ രാജേശ്വരൻ ്ന്നോട് . വ്യക്തിപരമായവിദ്വേഷംഉണ ആയതുകകൊണ്ടാണ്‌ ഇവർമൂവരും വന ചേർന മദ്യലഹരിയിൽ എന്റെ മുമ്പിൽ അധിക്ഷേപിച്ചു . സംസാരിച്ചത് ജോലി സ്ഥലത്തുംപ പൊതുസ്ഥലങ്ങളിലും സ്ത്രീ ജീവനക്കാരെ അധിക്ഷേപിക്ുയും അവരരോട് മോശമായി പെരുമാറുകയും ചെയ്‌തിട്ടുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ അവർക്കെതിരെ ശക്തമായ നടപടികൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുവാൻഗവൺമെനറതലത്തിൽഉത്തരവുകൾഉള്ളസ്ഥിതികക‌ ഈകാര്യത്തിൽമേൽപറഞ്ഞവ്യക്തികൾക്കെതിരെ നിയമനടപടികൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുവാൻവിനീതമായിഅപേക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.” It is difficult to hold that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act has been committed. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act, is attracted only if there is an intentional insult or intimidation with the intent of humiliating a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. After reading the complaint, I am unable to hold that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act has been committed by the petitioners. The provisions of Section 3(1)(s) indicate that mere abuse of the member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by caste name in any place within public view would attract the offence Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 13 : under that provisions. Reading of complaint (which forms in part Annexure–A12 FIR) would indicate that even according to the 2[nd] respondent the petitioners had not called out her by her caste name. The statement in the Final Report that the petitioners had abused the _de-facto_ complainant by the calling caste name appears to run directly counter to the complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent, which does not indicate that such caste name was called out by the petitioners. Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C No.147/2018 before the Special Court (SC/ST), Mananthavady stands quashed. **Sd/JUDGE** ## **GOPINATH P.** AMR Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 14 : ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3839/2018`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES`** - **`ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH.`** - **`ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.01.2014 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.`** - **`ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.05.2017 OF THE CCF, NORTHERN CIRCLE.`** - **`ANNEXURE 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.05.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD.`** - **`ANNEXURE 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.08.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD.`** - **`ANNEXURE 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.09.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD.`** - **`ANNEXURE 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2017 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.`** - **`ANNEXURE 8 SERI A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS REGARDING THE MEETING ON NGO ASSOCIATION.`** - **`ANNEXURE 9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.11.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD, DEPUTING STAFF.`** - **`ANNEXURE 10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.11.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD SEEKING MEDICAL TEAM.`** Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 : 15 : ``` ANNEXURE 11A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.11.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD, SEEKING SPORTS PERSONNEL. ``` - **`ANNEXURE 12 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 138/2018 OF THE SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION.`** - **`ANNEXURE 13 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 138/2018 OF THE SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION.`** - **`ANNEXURE 14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.04.2018 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD ADDRESSED TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER.`**