K.SHANTHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner as per Rule 12(4) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016. The petitioner is a victim and her husband is the de facto complainant. Based on his complaint, an F.I.R was registered in Crime No.55 of 2015, by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code r/w 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2014. On completion of the investigation, the third respondent has filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ottanchithram and the same is pending in P.R.C.No.07 of 2015. It is represented that the case has already been committed to the Special Court, dealing with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Dindigul in Spl.S.C.No.211 of 2018. In the mean time, the petitioner made a representation to the District Collector to grant her compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for which, she is entitled under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016. Since the representation was not considered, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

(2.) Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that on an independent enquiry conducted by the District Collector, Dindigul District, it was found that even though the victim by birth belongs to the Scheduled Community, she has followed Christianity and therefore, she is not entitled for the victim compensation and her husband is coming under the category of Backward Class.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Police have taken one stand in this case and the District Collector has taken a completely different stand and that itself shows that the subsequent finding of the District Collector is only with a view to deprive payment of compensation to the petitioner.