IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2887 of 2005()
1. RAJAN VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
2. NIRMALA RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN VARGHESE,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. RADHA DIVAKARAN, W/O. DIVAKARAN,
3. D. MAHESH, S/O. DIVAKARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.TOM K.THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :11/12/2008
O R D E R
M.C.HARI RANI, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.No.2887 OF 2005 A
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to quash Annexure B complaint and Annexure C charge
sheet in C.P.No.50/04 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, Changanassery. The facts of the case stated
in the petition are as follows:
2. The petitioners are husband and wife and are accused
Nos.1 and 2 respectively in C.P.No.50/04 pending on the file of
J.F.C.M., Changanassery. The first petitioner is the
Chairman/Manager of Mar Gregorious Engineering College,
Kottayam. The 3rd respondent was a student of that College and
the second respondent is his mother. Some of the students in
that College filed W.P.(C)Nos.19864/03 and 20101/03 before this
Court, seeking to transfer them to other institutions for want of
affiliation by the M.G.University. Annexure A is the copy of the
judgment. Respondents 2 and 3 herein filed a false complaint
before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chingavanam against the
CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -2-
petitioners herein alleging offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act.
Copy of that complaint dated 18.6.2003 is produced as Annexure B.
Annexure C charge sheet has filed, after investigation, before the Court
of JFCM, Changanassery, which according to the petitioners was to
wreak vengeance against them. Therefore, the charge sheet Annexure
C is liable to be quashed, it is submitted.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
respondents 2 and 3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that petitioners are husband and wife, arrayed as accused 1
and 2 respectively in C.P.No.50/04 before the Court of JFCM,
Changanassery. Annexure C is the copy of the charge sheet filed
against them, wherein offence alleged against the petitioners are under
sections 506(i) and 341 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of
the SCST(PA)Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the second petitioner is a house-wife and arrayed as
an accused without any reason and solely to wreak vengeance against
petitioners 1 and 2, as the first petitioner is the Principal of Mar
Gregorious College. Some arrears of mess fee was due from the 3rd
CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -3-
respondent to the College, which was not paid by him, and for that
reason his certificates were not returned to him. Subsequently, those
certificates were returned and the 3rd respondent has joined in another
College and continued his studies. It is also submitted that no incident
as alleged in the complaint, Annexure B has taken place and the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC ST (PA) Act is not attracted.
5. The prayer in this petition is opposed by the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and submitted that sufficient
ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCST
(PA)Act are there in the complaint filed by respondents 2 and 3 as
complainants before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chingavanam, copy of
which is produced as Annexure B. The same submission has been
made by the learned Public Prosecutor also.
6. In the present case, the police authorities have investigated
the case on the basis of the complaint filed by respondents 2 and 3,
copy of which is produced as Annexure A and the charge sheet was laid
before the competent court, copy of which is marked as Annexure C.
Whether prima facie case is there to attract the provisions of Section 3
(1)(x) of the SCST(PA) Act against petitioners 1 and 2 and whether the
case is to be committed to the Special Court are yet to be decided by
CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -4-
the learned Magistrate. Those are all matters to be decided by taking
evidence or statement of the witnesses concerned in appropriate stage.
This Court cannot jump to a conclusion at present, before considering
the evidence that the said offence has not been committed by the
petitioners as prayed for in this petition. This Court cannot give a
prima facie decision. Annexure C charge sheet is filed before the
learned Magistrate on 28.5.2004 and this petition is seen filed on
6.9.2005. Thereafter, interim stay has been granted by this Court.
The scope of exercise of power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is relating
to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Magistrate has already
taken cognizance of the offence and initiated proceedings against the
petitioners herein. The allegations made against the complainants
cannot be the basis for quashing the proceedings. Considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there are no sufficient
grounds to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court envisaged
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There is no merit in this petition and it is
liable to be dismissed. I do so.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioners are at
liberty to file a petition for exemption before the learned Magistrate
CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -5-
unless their appearance in person before the court is absolutely
necessary in appropriate stage.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn