VIMALAN S/O BHASKARAN & AJANTHA W/O VIMALAN v. THE KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION, SOORANADU POLICE STATION, THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAL

**'CR'** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.21659 OF 2017(F)** **PETITIONER/S: 1 VIMALAN S/O BHASKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS,'AJANTHALAYM',PORUVAZHI VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 AJANTHA W/O VIMALAN, AGED 47 YEARS, 'AJANHALAYM'EDAKKADU THEKKUMURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SRI.S.ABHILASH SMT.RENY ANTO SMT.S.SEETHA** |**BY ADVS.**<br>**SRI.K.SIJU**<br>**SRI.S.ABHILASH**<br>**SMT.RENY ANTO**<br>**SMT.S.SEETHA**|**BY ADVS.**<br>**SRI.K.SIJU**<br>**SRI.S.ABHILASH**<br>**SMT.RENY ANTO**<br>**SMT.S.SEETHA**| |---|---| |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|| |**1**|**THE KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBES**| ||**COMMISSION**| ||**AYYANKALI BHAVAN, KANAKA NAGAR,VELLAYAMBALAM,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER**| ||**SECRETARY.**| |**2**|**SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**SOORANADU POLICE STATION,SOORANADU PO,KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT-690516.**| |**3**|**THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.695501.**| |**4**|**LAL**| ||**S/O CHELLAPPAN, 'LATHA BHAVAN' NEAR KANJIRAVILA**| ||**JUNCTION,EDAKKADU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE,PORUVAZHI**| ||**PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN.690520.**| ||**R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR**| |**OTHER PRESENT**<br>**:**|| ||**SC MARY BENJAMIN**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0806-2020, THE COURT ON 10-06-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 2 **==> picture [34 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2020. **The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order of the first respondent; the Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, directing the third respondent; investigating officer in Crime No.1751 of 2016 of Sooranad Police Station, to submit final report in the crime, after including offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short “Prevention of Atrocities Act”) against the petitioners.** **2. The petitioners; husband and wife, are conducting a hotel at Sooranad. The 4[th] respondent was an employee in the hotel and had raised a demand for better wages through his Union. The** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 3 **demand for enhanced wages led to animosity between the petitioners and the 4[th] respondent and allegedly resulted in the 4[th] respondent being assaulted by the petitioners. The incident, which took place on 29.12.2015, led to registration of the crime against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 34 of IPC.** **3. The 4[th] respondent was dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the third respondent and being a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, approached the Commission seeking proper investigation. The third respondent submitted a report before the Commission stating that the investigation conducted on the basis of the statement given by the 4[th] respondent was completed and final report submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The Commission observed that, in spite of production of** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 4 **photographs showing the 4[th] respondent to have sustained severe burns due to the attack by the petitioners, offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Act was not included in the final report. Therefore, the Commission directed the third respondent to submit the final report by including offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Act.** **4. Heard.** **5. The question arising for consideration is the authority of the first respondent Commission to direct the investigating officer to include certain offences in the final report, that too after the final report was submitted in the court.** **6. Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C deals with submission of report by a Police Officer on completion of investigation. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 provides for further investigation,** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 5 **after submission of final report. The conduct of further investigation is the prerogative of the investigating officer, depending on the evidence received after submission of the final report. The court before which the final report is submitted can also direct further investigation if it finds that the investigation was not conducted in a proper manner. The State Government's power of superintendence over investigations has been found to include the power to direct further investigation. (see** _**State of Bihar v. JAC Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554]**_ **). On the filing of the final report, the victim can file a protest complaint and if the court finds substance in the protest, direction can be issued for further investigation. But Section 173 (8) or any other provision does not empower an authority like the first respondent Commission to direct further investigation and** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 6 **inclusion of specified offences in the final report. It has often been held that even the High Courts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, should be loath in interfering with police investigation and in directing further investigation or investigation by other agencies.** **7. The first respondent Commission constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act'), for exercising the powers and performing the functions assigned to it under the Act, is undoubtedly a creature of the statute. Therefore the Commission cannot exercise any function or power other than what is conferred under the Act. Section 9 of the Act deals with the functions of the Commission. The relevant portion of Section 9 is extracted below:-** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 7 _“_ _**9. Functions of the Commission.- The Commission shall have the following functions, namely:-**_ _**“(a) to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the Constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in Kerala.**_ _**(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in Kerala and to take up such matters with the appropriate authorities.”**_ **Under Section 9(b), the Commission is empowered to enquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in Kerala and to take up such matters with the appropriate authorities. The deprivation of rights and safeguards in Section 9(a) cannot be equated with the term 'atrocity' in the Prevention of Atrocities Act. As can be understood from a reading of Section 9(a), the rights and safeguards** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 8 **mentioned in Section 9(b) are the rights and safeguards provided in the Constitution of India or under any law or order issued by the Government, for the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On the other hand, the Prevention of Atrocities Act seek to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Commission cannot transgress into the field covered by the Prevention of Atrocities Act and direct investigation to be conducted into the offences coming under that Act. Even otherwise, on a plain reading of Section 9(b), it is clear that after enquiring into specific complaints with** W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 9 **respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards, the Commission can only take up such matters with the appropriate authority. Under no stretch of imagination can power to take up the matter with the appropriate authority be understood to have clothed the Commission with the power to interfere with a criminal investigation. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the Commission did not have the authority to issue Ext.P4.** **In the result, the writ petition is allowed, by quashing Ext.P4. No order as to costs.** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/10.06 W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2017 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1751/2015 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1751/2015 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF ORDER OF THE KERALA SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION.**