DR.R.RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed aggrieved by the order of the Court of Sessions, Chennai (Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), dtd. 9/6/2022, in Crl.M.P.Sr.No.18115/2021, in and by which, the prayer of the petitioner to refer his complaint, dtd. 26/7/2021, for investigation by the respondent police under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Judge.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case where the petitioner has suffered injustice in the matter of registration of complaint itself. He would submit that he filed the present petition on 30/9/2022 before the Trial Court. Strangely, the petition has not even been numbered and was returned with some queries. While representing, the petitioner had also filed the requisite affidavit and appropriate Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, a strange procedure of recording sworn statement was resorted to by the Trial Court and after recording the sworn statement without even numbering the petition, the Trial Court rejected the petition. The reasons given by the Trial Court that the complaint has been filed in a routine manner to harass the proposed accused is without any basis. The Trial Court has also given an erroneous finding that the complainant did not file the affidavit. Therefore, he would submit that this is a case for interference by this Court.

(3.) Taking further through the complaint filed by the petitioner dtd. 26/7/2021 in this case, he would submit that the proposed accused, namely, Dr.Rita John had clearly and categorically made an allegation as if the petitioner misbehaved with the women students and he had written bad words on the whiteboard. The proposed accused knows the caste of the petitioner. Only because the petitioner belongs to Schedule caste she made such allegations against the petitioner. From the very fact that the University did not take any action against the petitioner, it is proved that there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner. Once the complaint is said to be a false complaint, offences under Ss. 3 (1) (u) and 3(1) (zb) are made out. Therefore, when the complaint of the petitioner discloses prima facie cognizable offences, the Trial Court ought to have referred the same for investigation under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C.