R RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought forth seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to entrust the investigation in Crime No.180/01 on the file of the 5th respondent to a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, who investigated the Crime No.180/01 on the file of the 5th respondent as per Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse to the petitioner the relief amount he is entitled to as per the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) Pursuant to a written complaint by the petitioner to Voimedu Police Station, a case came to be registered in Crime No.180 of 2001 under Ss 341, 323 I.P.C. read with Sec.3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act on 11.4.2001. Immediately after the registration of the case, the Inspector of Police, Voimedu Police Station, who registered the case, submitted the papers to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for necessary action. In turn, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shown as the 4th respondent herein, took up the investigation, examined the witnesses including the complainant and completed the investigation. He handed over the same to the Inspector for further investigation in view of the fact that it did not disclose an offence falling under the provisions of the SC & ST Act and dropped the further action with reference to the provisions under the said Act. Accordingly, the further investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, and a charge sheet under Ss 341 and 323 of I.P.C. was filed. The complainant, who is the petitioner herein aggrieved over the deletion of the case under the provisions of the SC & ST Act, has brought forth this petition seeking for the above said reliefs.

(3.) Arguing for the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that after receiving the complaint, a case came to be registered under Sec.3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, but the case should have been investigated into by a Deputy Superintendent of Police; that neither the Inspector of Police nor any other Officials had actually recorded the statements from the petitioner/complainant and other witnesses; that in fact, none of the persons whose statements having been allegedly recorded under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not even met by the Police Personnel; that a reading of the statements revealed that they have been brought on record only to demolish the entire case and the complaint as recorded in the F.I.R.; that the Police Officer has taken every care to see that the case ended in acquittal, and therefore, the narration of the occurrence has been so made in the statements to contradict the complaint in the F.I.R. in entirety; that the 5th respondent has purposefully deleted the provisions of SC & ST Act, and the same was contrary to the settled position of law; that only the Special Court constituted under the SC & ST Act was empowered to do the same taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case; that no notice was served on the petitioner with regard to the deletion of the provisions of SC & ST Act; that the charge sheet should have been laid only by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and that too in the Special Court constituted under the Act; that the entrustment of the investigation of the offence under SC & ST Act with an Officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has been done without any reason whatsoever; that since the offence was committed against the petitioner namely one under Sec.3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, he should have been paid the relief amount as set out in the Annexure to the said Act, and hence, the Court has to invoke its inherent powers to issue directions as sought for.