IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 307 of 2010()
1. JAMSHEER K.T., S/O.RAYIN KUTTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :08/02/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
Cr. MC No.307 of 2010
————————————-
Dated 8th February 2010
Order
This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, seeking to have all further
proceedings in Crime No.698/09 of Manjeri Police Station,
as against the petitioner, quashed.
2. In the incident, which occurred on 23.10.2009
at about 8 pm, Rajan, the defacto complainant made a
complaint before the Manjeri Police Station, accusing
certain persons of having caused hurt to him and by calling
him by his caste name. Crime No.698/09 of Manjeri Police
Station was therefore, registered for the offences
punishable under Ss.323, 324 and 326 r/w S.34 IPC and
S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989). The
complainant stated that he was attacked while he was on
his way home.
CRMC 307/10 2
3. In this petition, the petitioner focuses the
attention of this Court on the offence under S.3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989). It is pointed out that the allegation
contained in the F.I.R. do not reveal an offence under the
said provision as it could not be said that the incident
occurred in public view. In support of his contention, he
relied on the decision in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (2008(12) SCC 531).
4. It has to be noticed that the case is at its very
infant stage. The complainant has made some statements
in the complaint, which according to him, were sufficient for
the purpose. Whether they make out any offence, is a
matter to be found by the Investigating Agency and Court
F.I.R. is only the narration of facts and it cannot be said
that it must contain all the ingredients and details. The
investigation is yet to go on. On facts, the decision relied
on by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be
CRMC 307/10 3
applicable. During the investigation, it may be found that
the offence under S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) is
not made out. It is too early to adjudicate on this issue now.
Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to assail the final
report in case he is aggrieved by the same, this petition is
disposed of.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
CRMC 307/10 4