ARUMUGAM ASIRVATHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to issue necessary directions to the respondents-police to proceed against the accused and investigate Crime No:234 of 2003 and file a final report.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner Arumugam @ Asirvatham filed a complaint before the first respondent-police on 5.9.2003, based on which a case in Cr.No.234 of 2003 for alleged offences under Sections 3(1) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. Since there is no progress in the case, the petitioner filed this Crl.O.P., to direct the the respondents herein to complete the investigation and file a final report. This Petition was filed during January, 2004. This court was informed by the Government Advocate on 24.3.2004 that the case was investigated and found to be mistake of fact and R.C.Notice No.4/2003 was served on the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no R.C.Notice was served on the petitioner. Therefore the respondents-police was directed to produce the R.C.Notice in Court on 31.3.2004. On 31.3.2004, the R.C.Notice was not produced by the first respondent-police. Therefore, this court directed the Registry to call for the records in Crime NO.234 of 2003. Thereafter the R.C.Notice was served on the mid night of 1.4.2004, wherein, the petitioner was required to be present on 2.4.2004 before the Judicial Magistrate at Tenkasi. Since there was not even breathing time, the petitioner could not on 2.4.2004, the learned Judicial magistrate passed an order saying "complainant called absent and the case was closed as mistake of fact". 3rd and 4th of April, 2004 were holidays. On 5.4.2004, the petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and filed a Petition which was returned stating that the case has already been closed as mistake of fact based on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam.

(3.) A Perusal of the final report now produced by the learned Government Advocate would show that on facts and law, the case is referred as mistake of fact. On the question of law, the Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has converted his religion from Hinduism to Christianity and therefore he is not a member of the Scheduled Caste. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly relied upon a judgemnt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in I (2004) CCR 193 (SC) (State of Kerala Vs. Chandramohanan), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-