ASIT KUMAR BARMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.159 of 2025 dtd. 24/8/2025 on the file of the second respondent police, registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u), and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) The allegation in the FIR is that the third respondent was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 16/4/2021 in the Bharathidasan Institute of Management; that the petitioner, who is now working as the Director of the said Institute, had conducted himself in a high-handed manner, asserting his superiority in caste by openly proclaiming that he belongs to the Kshatriya community; that the petitioner, knowing fully that the third respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, had an inherent bias and hatred towards the third respondent; that the petitioner used every opportunity to discriminate, humiliate, and insult the third respondent on account of his caste; that during the two years of the third respondent"s service at the Bharathidasan Institute of Management, the petitioner, in collusion with other professors, had systematically harassed and humiliated him; that on a particular occasion in December 2021, the petitioner ridiculed the third respondent, despite the latter having secured an excellent official student course feedback score of 7.96/10, and stated that he would ensure that the third respondent would not secure such a high score in future; that thereafter, the petitioner continuously gave negative feedback about the third respondent; that the third respondent was allotted only left-over elective subjects and was not assigned any core subjects; that the harassment continued even thereafter; that on 7/7/2023, the petitioner terminated the services of the third respondent without issuing any show cause notice or conducting any enquiry, only due to caste prejudice; that the third respondent challenged the said order of termination before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.19133 of 2023, and this Court, by order dtd. 9/8/2023, set aside the order of termination; that the petitioner and the institution preferred W.A.(MD) No.2107 of 2023, and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by order dtd. 4/8/2025, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition; that the petitioner, however, refused to implement the said order and, with an intention to insult the third respondent, stated that he would file an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the third respondent may file a contempt petition if he so desired; and thereby, the petitioner is stated to have committed the aforesaid offence.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned prosecution is an abuse of process of law; that none of the allegations would constitute the alleged offences; that this Court, while quashing the order terminating the petitioner from service, had observed that the allegation of the third respondent that he was terminated on account of caste bias was an afterthought; that even in the writ appeal, the Division Bench of this Court did not disturb the said finding; that though the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had found that the allegation of caste discrimination was without any basis; that the third respondent had also lodged a complaint before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes; that the said Commission had forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police; that the Superintendent of Police, in his report dtd. 22/7/2024, had stated that the allegation of caste discrimination was without any basis; and that the impugned prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law, and therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.