P SUSILA Vs. USHARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet in Cri M.P. No. 15595 of 2005 in S.C. No. 538 of 2005 dated 14.12.2006 discharging the accused in a complaint under Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent were working as head constables in All Women Police Station, Mamallapuram. The petitioner preferred a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sttion through RPAD alleging an occurrence of commission of offence under Section 3(l)(x) Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that took place on 22.2.2004. Finding no action taken there on, the petitioner preferred a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet. As offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was alleged, the matter stood committed to the Sessions Court. Chengalpet. The factual details of the complaint are not relevant to the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice to state that the accusation of the point was that the respondent accused harassed the petitioners and heaped abuse upon her as she belonged to a scheduled community. Though before the Court below question of delay in filing the complaint and of the complaint having been preferred be-fore a Court not having jurisdiction were also in-formed, it was impressed upon the court below, by reference to a circular issued by this court in ROC 1062/2003 F1 dated 22.5.2003, that com-plaints against police personnel were to be pre-ferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court below, restricted itself to the question of propriety or otherwise of preference of the com-plaint before the Magistrate and found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have outright rejected the complaint and directed the petition-ers to seek resort to relevant rules of procedure established by law.

(3.) The Court below reasoned that since the petitioner had already preferred a petition before the concerned authorities, it would have been for the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Su-perintendent of Police to take appropriate action as per procedure laid down in Rules 6 and 7 of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Bypassing such provisions, in the absence of a referred charge-sheet was faulted.