SAKKARAI @ A. SAKKARAPANI Vs. KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.K.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.G.Anbarasu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mrs. Saraladevi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The petitioner A.Sakkarai @ A.Sakkarapani has filed the present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to call for the records in P.R.C.No.17 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tirukalukundram and quash the same. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.9 of 2010, E5 Coovathoor Police Station, Kanchipuram District. The Inspector of Police had registered a First Information Report against the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Act 1989, based on the complaint given by one S.Kumar, S/o Shanmugam. A perusal of the First Information Report shows that on 04.01.2010, the de-facto complainant S.Kumar was returning back at about 10.00 p.m from Periyakuppam in his Car and at that time, the accused A.Sakkarai stopped his car and picked up quarrel with him by threatening that he will kill him. According to the complainant, the accused abused his driver in filthy language by mentioning his Caste name. Investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and a final report was also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirukalukundram in P.R.C.No.17 of 2010. The primordial contention of the petitioner is that since the complainant S.Kumar is not an aggrieved party, the Deputy Superintendent of Police is wrong in filing a final report for the offences under Section 341, 324, 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tripes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. His specific contention is that, even according to the complainant S.Kumar, the accused abused only his driver Sudakar in filthy language mentioning his caste name and that though the said Sudakar has been shown as one of the witnesses, the final report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot be sustained, as far as Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tripes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. K.S.Kumarl, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/de-facto complainant contended that the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses S.Kumar, P.Sudakar, J.Prabakaran, R.Ramu, S.Kalaimani, S.Harikrishnan,, V.Chellappan and K.Sathya and since it transpired during the course of investigation that the offences punishable under Section 341, 324, 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tripes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been committed by the accused, a final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram in P.R.C.No.17 of 2010.