Mohamed Hashim Advt: GKIJ Judgment. .. Sc&ST Act quash.. very detailed judgment

[1/25, 20:53] Mohamed Hashim Advt: GKIJ Judgment. .. Sc&ST Act quash.. very detailed judgment
[1/25, 22:13] Sekarreporter1: Crl.O.P.(MD) No.204 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 22.12.2020
Delivered On : 20.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.204 of 2015
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8342 of 2018
1. Paulraj
2. Sivasami
3. Palanisami
4. Muthu … Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirumangaslam Sub-Division,
Madurai District.
2.Manimaran … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
call for the records in Spl.S.C. No. 70 of 2014 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Court PCR Madurai, pending disposal of
the above quash petition.
Page 1 of 24 http://www.judis.nic.in
[1/25, 22:26] Mohamed Hashim Advt: 14.In any place within public view of insults or intimidates to a
person will not attract an offence under the Act. Unless such insult or
intimidate is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe, the act is to include the Socio condition of the SC/ ST, as
they are denied number of civil rights. Assertion of title and possession over
the subject property by either of parties is not due either of indignities by
humiliates or harassing. The petitioners as well as the second respondent’s
maternal uncle if there is any right over the subject property, they have to
avail remedies in accordance with law. The first petitioner has rightly
approached the civil Court for injunction as against the uncle of the defacto
complainant/second respondent, who is claiming to be the cultivating
tenant, in respect of the subject property in O.S.No.105 of 2012 on the file
of the District Munsif, Tirumangalam and the same was decreed in his
favour. Aggrieved by the same, the uncle of the second respondent has also
filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.82 of 2019 and it is pending without anyinterim order. Therefore, the said action is not for the reason that the second
respondent is a member of Scheduled Caste. The above judgment relied
upon by the petitioners is squarely applicable on the case on hand and the
charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is not made out as against the
petitioners.
[1/25, 22:26] Sekarreporter1: Crl.O.P.(MD) No.204 of 2015
For Petitioners : Mr. N.Mohideen Basha
For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
: Mr.K.Kannan for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Spl.S.C. No. 70 of 2014, on the file of the III Additional
District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai.
2.The crux of the complaint is that on 18.04.2012 at about 11.00 a.m.,
all the accused persons along with 50 others had trespassed in the
Agricultural land belonging to the defacto complainant’s uncle and abused
and insulted by naming his Caste and damaged Bero, car, Grinder and
Motor worth about Two Lakhs. It is further alleged that all the accused
persons closed the Well by pouring the sand and looted 10 sovereigns of
gold jewels from the defacto complainant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4, they owned agricultural land comprising
Page 2 of 24 http://www.judis.nic.in