K MUHAMMED Vs. K SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, the accused in C.P.54/2000 pending before the J.F.C.M. Court, Hosdurg, filed this petition for quashing the entire prosecution proceedings pending against him. The C.I. of Police, Hosdurg, filed the final report in Crime No.200 / 97 of Hosdurg Police Station alleging the commission of offence under S.445, 341 and 506(1) IPC and also under S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The final report was filed before the Sessions Court, Kasargod and it was taken to the file as S.C. 46/97. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P. [ 2000 (1) KLT 609 ], the case was sent back to the JFCM Court, Hosdurg for following the procedure of committal to the Special Court. Accordingly the case was registered as C.P.54/200 before the court below. Now the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings on the ground that the C.I. of Police who investigated the case and laid the charge was incompetent to investigate and prefer a chargesheet in view of R.7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, the Rules) and also on the ground that the allegations in the charge do not make out a case under S.3(1)(x) of the Act.

(2.) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the C.I. of Police was not competent to investigate the case and to file a chargesheet as the investigation had to be done by a police officer not below the rank of a Dy. Superintendent of Police in view of R.7 of the Rules. R.7 reads:

(3.) An argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the F.I statement do not make out any case under S.3(1)(x) of the Act as the alleged statement was not made at a place within the public view. On going through the statement it is seen that the statement was made at a shop and it is a place within public view and on that ground the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under the Act cannot be quashed. Hence the above argument also cannot be accepted.