Maheswaran v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 31/10/2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.A(MD)Nos.619 and 620 of 2022 (1)Crl.A(MD)No.619 of 2022 : - Maheswaran : Appellant/A1 Vs.
1.State through The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Sub Division, Tenkasi District.
2.The Inspector of Police, KV Nallur Police Station, Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.377 of 2022) : R1 and R2/Complainants 3.Ramachandran : 3rd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P No.1994 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, dated 28/09/2002 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellant/A1, in Crime No.377 of 2022 on the file of the respondent, on bail, by allowing the appeal.
(2)Crl.A(MD)No.620 of 2022 : - 1.Ramachandran @ Moorthy 2.Sudha @ Mariammal : Appellants/A2 and A3 Vs.
1.State through The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Sub Division, Tenkasi District.
2.The Inspector of Police, KV Nallur Police Station, Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.377 of 2022) : R1 and R2/Complainants 3.Ramachandran : 3rd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P No.2084 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, dated 28/09/2002 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellants/A2 and A3, in Crime No.377 of 2022 on the file of the respondent, on bail, by allowing the appeal. For Appellant(s) (in both cases) : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For 3rd Respondent : Mr.P.Ponraj
COMMON JUDGMENT These Criminal Appeals have been filed to set aside the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1994 and 2084 of 2022, dated 28/09/2022.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- A suo motu FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station namely Karivalamvanthanallur. He viewed a video. On a secret enquiry, revealed that the child belong to SC community were denied shopping eatable items by the accused persons. On enquiry, it was found that in 2002, a case was registered under the provisions of the Special Act against A2. He and his mother namely Sudha @ Mariammal forced the de-facto complainant to withdraw the case. A2 and A3 along with A1 approached one Raju in this regard. But they refused. On refusal, all the accused persons joined together, criminally intimidated and also stated that no items from the shop will be sold to SC community people. On the same day itself, A1 to A5 convened a meeting and decided to boycott the SC people socially and economically. On 15/09/2002, one Ponnuthai,
who belongs to SC community went to A1 shop to purchase grocery items. That was refused stating that a resolution has been taken by his community people. Similarly, he also denied the eatable items to the school going childrens and that was recorded by himself and it was spread through media. On the basis of the above said information and enquiry, a case was registered and later, alteration report was also filed.
3.Now all the three accused persons have filed separate petitions before the Special Court and they were dismissed on the ground of considering the seriousness of the offence and the allegations. Against which, these appeals have been preferred by the accused persons separately.
4.Heard both sides. Both the appeals were heard together and this common order is passed.
5.Politically, Indian community was liberated in 1947. Even after a lapse of 75 years of political liberation, a section of Indian community people has not been fully liberated socially and economically. Still
they are facing the wrath of communal supremacy. Even after a lapse of 75 years of political liberation, social and economical liberation still remains an illusion and evasive to them.
6.In spite of enactment of Special Law and introducing welfare measures to lift the weaker section of the society to the common fraternity, still it could not be achieved fully. The crime against the weaker section of the society is on the rise annually, which is evident from the National Crime record bureau data. 7.This is a classical case, in which even the innocent school going childrens were not spared. They have been even denied the eatables by the accused persons. Since because, the adults belonging to their community refused to withdraw the case, which was registered against A2 and A3.
8.It appears that A2 and A3 with A1 approached the de-facto complainant to withdraw the case in Crime No.406 of 2020, which was registered for the similar offence on the file of the respondent police, when that was refused,
the above said resolution has been passed by the community people to socially and economically boycott the SC community people. What is distressing to note is that A1 was dare enough to record the events through video and that video was occasionally viewed by the de-facto complainant. That is how, the above entire occurrence came to the notice of the police. Threatening the defacto complainant in Crime No.406 of 2020 to withdraw the case itself is a grievous offence. That cannot be condoned on any ground.
9.In this context, the opinion of the Hon'ble Justice Mr.S.Ravindra Butt in the case, which challenged the amendment to the Special Act, section 18A in W.P(C)1015/2018 that 'among the idea in the preamble portion of the Constitution, the word' fraternity' is least discussed and explored is worth relevant. He further observed the importance of the fraternity in the following:- "liberty without equality or fraternity, can well result in the perpetuation of existing inequalities and worse, result in license to indulge in society's basest practices".
10.It was also observed that the enactment of the Special Law is towards achieving the goal that is mentioned in the preamble.
11.So what is required is a change in the mind set of the society to treat all equally.
12.When that view was expressed by me, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants has rightly come forward by filing an affidavit of undertaking that they will not make any trouble to the de-facto complainant in the above said Crime No.406 of 2020 and they are at liberty to give evidence as they like. 13.He would further submit that what had happened is unfortunate. Let me extract the para 3 in the affidavit of undertaking filed by A1:- "I submit that I express my deep regret and unconditional apology for the above said incident. I have realized that the said incident was unwanted and was not right of facts.
Though I didn't post the said video with intention to insult anyone or
breach the public peace, I understand that it has created unwanted repercussions in the social network and I deeply regret and apologize for the same."
14.Even though, the learned Senior counsel, who is appearing for the appellants during the course of argument has submitted that there will not be any trouble to the de-facto complainant in the above said crime to withdraw the case, per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to this rare occasion and occurrence in the village, communal tension still prevailing in the village. The neighboring villages already suffered the law and order issue, because of five murders that took place between the community people and still tension is prevailing and police picketing is posted in the occurrence village.
15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the undertaking affidavit filed by the first accused may not serve any purpose. He has not given any undertaking that they will continue to sell the eatables items to other community people also. It is
further submitted that since tension is prevailing in the area, if the appellants are released on bail, there is possibility of escalation of tension. So, he made strong objection to enlarge the appellants on bail. That was supported by the victim's counsel.
16.Reading of the entire CD file shows that the concerned video has also been recovered and now, it has been sent for expert analysis and A1 presence is required for voice sample. On the basis of the request made by the Investigating officer, the first accused was prevented from visiting the village for six months. So, strong objection has been made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
17.When the appellant/A1 in Crl.A(MD)No.619 of 2022 has come forward with the open undertaking affidavit, that must be considered by this court to restore the communal harmony in the village. Since the first accused is already barred from occurrence village for six months, I am of the considered view that considering the fact that he was not an accused in Crime No.406 of 2020, he may be released on bail by allowing
this appeal, by directing him to stay in Trichy and sign before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy, until further orders. Accordingly, Crl.A(MD)No.619 of 2022 is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P.No.1994 of 2022, dated 28/09/2022 and the appellant/A1 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Tirunelveli and on further condition that the appellant/A1 shall stay at Trichy and report before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy until further orders.
18.So far as the other accused are concerned namely A2, he was accused in Crime No.406 of 2020 and they are the prime persons, who made threat to the defacto complainant in the above said case to withdraw the case, for which, A1 stated to have assisted. Considering the fact that this is the second similar crime and also considering the fact that they made a threat to the defacto complainant in the above said case, they are not
entitled for bail at this stage. So Crl.A(MD)No.620 of 2022 filed by A2 and A3 is dismissed.
31/10/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To, 1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PRC), Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
G.ILANGOVAN,J er Crl.A(MD)Nos.619 and 620 of 2022 31/10/2022