IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2885 of 2010()
1. SURESH, S/O.JANARDHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :26/07/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.2885 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.372/1997 of
Kayamkulam Police Station initially registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 294 (b), 509 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, which, after investigation, led to
indictment against five persons including the petitioner for
offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, for short, the ‘Act’ along with penal offences referred to
above. Admittedly, the other accused in the above case, A1, A3,
A4 and A5 after trial had been acquitted of the offences indicted.
A1, A3 and A5 were acquitted after a joint trial of them by
judgment dated 20.12.2004 in S.C.No.535 of 2001. A4 was later
tried in S.C.No.402 of 2007 and he was acquitted by judgment
dated 11.3.2009. Petitioner remained at large when the trial
CRL.M.C.2885/10 2
against the co-accused proceeded. He has now approached this
Court with the above petition seeking for quashing the
proceedings invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with
this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
submitting that the materials produced by the prosecution do not
make out a case against him for any of the offences, both
covered under the Act and also the Indian Penal Code. Acquittal
of the co-accused in separate trials as indicated above, by
separate judgments, which are produced with the petition, is also
banked upon by the petitioner to seek for the reliefs canvassed in
the petition.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not produced any
material to show that the accused are members other than
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and the de facto complainant
against whom atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated is a
member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. It is further
CRL.M.C.2885/10 3
submitted that the investigation of the case was conducted by a
Circle Inspector of Police and it was so done flouting the
mandate under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. There
was no material whatsoever to connect any of the accused with
any of the offences imputed and that it led to the acquittal of
other accused, is also highlighted by the counsel to contend that
the trial of the accused, at this belated stage, is quite
unwarranted, and, at best, it would cause only wastage of the
precious time of the court. Pointing out that the acquittal of the
co-accused is not a genuine ground to avoid the trial of the
accused, who had remained at large, learned Public Prosecutor
placing reliance on Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006
(1) KLT 552 (FB)) submitted that if at all the petitioner has a
case that the charges imputed against him are groundless, he
could seek for his discharge from the trial court as provided by
law under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. Bypassing the
trial court and, that too, after keeping him aloof from the law
enforcing agency, the petitioner has moved the petition, is taken
CRL.M.C.2885/10 4
exception to by the Public Prosecutor contending that this is not
a fit case where invoking of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is called
for.
3. I have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor. True, the petitioner has remained at large and
presumably, warrant issued against him, at this stage, must be
pending. Still, in the given facts of the case, it is prima facie
shown that directing him to appear before the trial court and
seek for discharge for the reason that he has absconded and
evaded from trial earlier would have the effect of only wasting
the precious time of the court. It is practically conceded that the
prosecuting agency has not produced any worth mentioning
material to substantiate that the de facto complainant was a
member of the Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe, and the
petitioner and the other accused not members of Scheduled
caste/Scheduled tribe, the fundamental element to establish an
offence under the SC/ST Act. It is further shown that the
CRL.M.C.2885/10 5
investigation of the case was conducted by a Circle Inspector of
Police and, that too, when the Rules mandated such investigation
by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police. Even discarding the reasons stated in the judgment
rendered acquitting the other accused, on the above aspects
presented, it appears, the prosecution of the petitioner directing
for his trial for the offences imputed, would not be advantageous
to justice, but, it would only result in wasting the precious time
of the court. In that view of the matter, further proceedings
against the petitioner in L.P.No.22 of 2002 in C.P.25 of 2007 on
the file of the J.F.C.M.Court, Kayamkulam are ordered to be
quashed. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
CRL.M.C.2885/10 6