CHINNASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER/accused in CC 215 of 1998 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai , has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings pending against him.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: One Periampillai gave a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he had abused him by calling his caste name. On the said complaint, the respondent-Police registered a case on Crime No. 12/95 under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act (hereinafter called as S. C. and S. T. Act) and the case was investigated by the Police and ultimately, the case was referred. He sent petitions to higher officials for proper investigation and dropping of the case. With the result, the respondent-Police after investigation has not only referred the case but also sent intimation to the petitioner stating that the case had been referred. While so, it seems that the police have re-opened the case on the pretext of making further investigation and found out materials to file a charge-sheet against him for an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of S. C. and S. T. Act.

(3.) THE Petitioner/accused has been charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of S. C. and S. T. Act. THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after registration of the case, the Inspector of Police Muthuvelan referred the case on 30-11-95 and there is no record to show that any further investigation was done. However, the learned Government Advocate stated that the case was not referred and moreover, no such communication was also sent to the Court. Case diary was also sent for and perused. Perusal of the same indicates that there is a paper in the case records to show as if on 30-11-95 the case has been referred. Similarly, the case records were also sent for from the Court. A perusal of the same indicates that no such communication was sent by the Inspector of Police to the Court. However, it is not known how such a communication, which was in the case diary, was secured by petitioner/accused. It is only when the referred information was sent to the Court, then alone much weight can be attached to the same. Simply because some referred communication was available in the case diary and also the copy of the same was produced by the petitioner, no conclusion can be drawn that the case was legally referred.