M A KUTTAPPAN Vs. E KRISHNAN NAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal by special leave is aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M. C. No. 2192 of 1996 dated 21st February, 1997 whereby a learned Judge of the High Court while allowing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashed the order of the Special Judge, Thalassery whereby he had taken cognizance of the offences under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the '1989 Act') and Section 7 (1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The High Court held that none of the offences above mentioned were made out on the basis of the complaint and the material placed before the learned Special Judge.

(2.) In view of the order, which we propose to make, it is neither necessary nor advisable to refer to the facts of the case in detail lest it may prejudice the case of the parties in any proceedings in future. However it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the broad facts which give rise to the instant appeal.

(3.) The appellant herein, the complainant, claiming to be a Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and belonging to a Scheduled Caste known as 'Pathiyan' and practicing as a doctor by profession owing allegiance to the Indian National Congress (I) filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under Act 33 of 1989 at Thalassery. In his complaint he alleged that respondent No.1 belongs to Nair community, which is not a scheduled caste, was a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxists). He at the relevant time held the office of Chief Minister of the State of Kerala and was contesting bye-election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the Thalassery Assembly Constituency. A Convention of the Left Democratic Front was convened on September 20, 1996 in the evening at the Town Bank Auditorium, Thalassery in which respondent No.1 made a speech wherein he made certain disparaging observations wilfully and deliberately emphasizing the fact that the complainant belongs to a lower and inferior category of MLA being a member of a scheduled caste. Respondent No.1 emphasised the fact that the appellant was a Harijan and made derogatory remarks about the complainant. This was done in full view of the public assembled in the Auditorium. Respondent No.1 is alleged to have stated as follows :--