DEVAKI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE COIMBATORE RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No. 619 of 2023 on the file of 2nd respondent police for the alleged offence under Secs. 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

(2.) The case of prosecution is that on 30/11/2023, there was a Pollachi Municipal Committee meeting held under the head of Chairman and after completion of meeting, when the petitioner came out from the meeting hall, she abused the other members by using their caste name, due to which, other members sustained severe mental agony. On the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent registered the F.I.R. in Crime No. 619 of 2023.

(3.) Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an elected 5th ward Councillor of Pollachi Municipality and she is not affiliated to any political party and she was elected as an independent candidate. As a duty, she had gone to attend the meeting. Following their usual practice and making a mockery of democratic process, without any discussion all resolutions were considered to have been passed. Though the petitioner raised objections as against the procedures being adopted, it was not considered and majority started shouting to drown out the petitioner's voice of objections, but the Chairman did not take any action on the shouting projected as against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner informed that she wanted to issue a public statement as to the manner in which the council is functioning. Hence, a false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioner as if the she had abused him by using their caste name viz., "chakkili". The petitioner never scolded any individual person. Further, though the word in general would not attract any of the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in fact, the word Chakkili is akin to Yaman and it means disorganised manner in which the persons behave. Therefore, even as per the averments made in the complaint, which does not disclose any commission of offence. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of this court reported in 1993 (1) MWN (Cr.), in which this Court held that it is not the case of prosecution that several of the community people residing there have come forward with the grievance against the accused on the alleged derogatory insultation do not refer to P.W.s 1 and 2 but refers generally, simply because P.W.s 1 and 2 belong to Adi Dravida caste it is not safe to record a conviction as against the accused. The prosecution is bound to prove that the derogatory words of insultation by the accused with reference to particular person involved therein directly and that the overtact of the accused must constitute directly the guilt of the accused in passing derogatory and insultory remarks.