KALIYA PERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kaliya Perumal, in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is seeking the quashing of the F. I. R. registered in crime number 14 of 1996, by the respondent, for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the S. C. ,s. T. Act for short, on the complaint given by one Thenmozhi wife of one Haridoss.

(2.) THE grounds on which, this application has been filed are two fold: (i) THE averments in the F. I. R. would not constitute an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the S. C. ,s. T. Act and mere calling of the caste name by itself would not amount to dishonouring the caste to which the complainant belongs; (ii) Complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. She married a person by name Haridoss, who belongs to Yadhava Community. THErefore, the complainant becomes a member of the Yadhava Community family and that too, the said husband of the complainant is the relative of the petitioner and as such, the complainant has become a member of the petitioner's family. Hence, the provision of the S. C. ,s. T. Act cannot be invoked in favour of the complainant, according to the petitioner.

(3.) IN order to answer this point, some of the observations made by the Apex Court in Valsammal Paul v. Cochin University, 1996 (1) CTC 301 : AIR 1996 SC 1011 : 1996 (3) SCC 545, would in my view, be relevant and useful. IN that case, the question raised is this. ' ; However, the question is: Whether a lady marrying a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC citizen, or one transplanted by adoption or any other voluntary act, ipso facto, becomes entitled to claim reservation under Article 15 (4) or 16 (4), as the case may be"" While answering this question, the Apex Court, elaborately considered by referring the object of the special provisions under article 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution, which are intended for the advancement of the socially and educationally backward class citizens, and on discussing the various authorities earlier given by several High Courts and the apex Court, held that the advancement of socially and educationally backward class citizens cannot be defeated by including candidates by allowance or any other mode of joining the community and it would tantamount to making mockery of the Constitutional exercise of identification of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens.