IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04/02/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.818 OF
2003
K.P.S.Sathyamoorthy
... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.State of Tamilnadu,
through the Inspector of Police,
Protection of Civil Right Unit,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Superintendent of
Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of
Police,
Chennai.
4.Sri Kanchi Sangarachariar Sreemath
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal,
Kanchi Kamakodi Peedathipathy,
Sree Saradha Madam Sannithanam,
Kanchipuram.
... Respondents.
Criminal Original
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for the relief
stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.V.N.Santharam for
G.Vijayakumar&J.Yuvaraj
Shekar
^For R.1 to R.3 : Mr.N.R.Chandran,
Advocate General and
Mr.I.Subramaniam,
Public Prosecutor for
Mr.O.Srinath,
Govt.Advocate(crl.side)
For R.4 : Mr.K.Rajasekaran and
Mr.R.Natarajan
:O R D E R
The petitioner, alleging to be
belonging to the Scheduled Caste being
a member of the Hindu Pallan
community and professing Hindu religious faith,
has come forward to file the above
criminal original petition praying to call
for the records and quash the
final report dated 1 4.11.2002 filed by the
first respondent before the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi in
Crl.M.P.No.4936 of 2002 as illegal
and improper and to issue necessary
directions or orders for fresh
investigation in respect of the complainant's
complaint dated 28.10.2002 filed
before the said Magistrate by any other
competent investigating agency.
2. The petitioner would submit
that on 26.10.2002 while he was going
through the leading Tamil Daily
magazines `Dina Thanthi' and `Dina Malar'
circulated in his area, he read a press
statement in the nature of a circular
given by the 4th respondent/accused
inviting all Hindu Religious communal
associations to attend a meeting to be
held at Madras in respect of giving
clarification to the present enactment
of the State of Tamil Nadu prohibiting
compulsory religious conversion, which
is an insult on all the members of the
S.C. and S.T. communities within the
public view and the entire statement is
in the nature of creating enmity,
hatred and ill-will between different
religious classes, castes and
communities.
3. The petitioner has also
extracted the objectionable portion of the
4th respondent, which is extracted
below:
** ,J tiuapy; fpw!;Jt kjj;jpy;
cs;sth;fs; gog;g[ Kjy; vy;yh rYiffisa[k;
mDgtpj;J tpl;L cj;jpnahfk; vd tUk;
nghJ jhH;j;jgl;lth;fSf;F mjpfg;goahf
cj;jpnahf tha;g;g[ bfhLf;fg;gLtjhy;
jpUk;gt[k; ,e;Jthf khwp cj;j;pnahfj;jpw;F
te;J bfhz;oUe;jdh;/
,e;J rkaj;ijr; nrh;e;j midj;J
tFg;gpdiua[k;. $hjp r';f';f';fisa[k;
miHj;J kj khw;w jilr;rl;l tpsf;ff;
Tl;lk; eilbgWk;/ ,f;Tl;lk; vd; jiyikapy;
eilbgWk;/ ,jpy; midj;J $hjp
r';f';fSk; Fwpg;ghf mk;ngj;fhh; tHpia gpd;gw;Wk;
bghJkf;fs; mtrpak; fye;J bfhs;sntz;Lk;
4. Extracting the above
Tamil version of the publication, the
petitioner would state that he
presented the complaint against the fourth
respondent/accused for offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, under Section 505(2) of the
IPC and Section 3(g) of the Religious
Institutions (Prevention of
Misuse) Act before the Judicial Magistrate,
Sivakasi, who took the complaint on
file, numbered the same as Crl.M.P.No.4936
of 2002 and directed the first
respondent to investigate the complaint under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and to submit
a final report thus forwarding the said
complaint to the first respondent on
the very same day.
5. The petitioner has further
stated that since nothing was heard
from the first respondent, he
appeared before him on 9.11.2002 and enquired
about the stage of the case, when he
was given to understand that the said
complaint was to be sent to the
Assistant Director of Prosecution at
Virudhunagar seeking opinion regarding
the sustainability of the complaint and
registering the case for investigation
and the final report would be submitted
before the Court. During the said
meeting, the petitioner is also alleged to
have informed the first respondent
of the mandatory provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995 followed by which he also
submitted an explanatory letter dated
13.11.2002 by registered post; that in
spite of receipt of the said letter on
14.11.2002, the first respondent did
not consider anything stated therein and
filed the final report accompanied by
the legal opinion of the Assistant
Director of Prosecution before the
Magistrate to the effect that the
petitioner's complaint did not disclose
or satisfy the ingredients of the
offences alleged against the fourth
respondent and therefore no investigation
was necessary, based on which the
Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi passed an
order on 18.11.2002 stating that the
petitioner's complaint in Crl.M.P.No.4936
of 2002 stood re jected.
6. On rejection of his
complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi
in the manner aforementioned, the
petitioner, stating that the final orders
passed in Crl.M.P.No.4936 of 2002 by
the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi are
prima facie illegal and liable to
be quashed, has come forward to file the
above criminal original petition on
certain grounds as brought forth in the
grounds of memorandum such as (i)
that the first respondent has no statutory
right or power or authority to
investigate the complaint for alleged offences
under the S.C.&S.T. (
Prevention of Atrocities) Act as per Rule 5 of the
SC.&S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules, 1995; (ii) that for the alleged
offence under the S.C.&S.T.(prevention
of Atrocities) Act along with the other
offences, the investigation could be
carried out by the first respondent in
view of the statutory prescription
under Rule 7 of the said Rules.
7. Citing two decided cases,
the first one reported in 1998-1-MWN (
Crl.)-259 = 1998(I)CTC 276
(A.SASIKUMAR vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VILLUPURAM) and the second one reported
in 1998-1-MWN (Crl.)349 (MRS.MARIAMMAL
vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU) wherein a
learned single Judge of this Court has held
that `within the meaning of Rule 7 of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules, 1 995, the Inspector of police has no
power or jurisdiction to investigate
the matter arising out of Act 33 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
that the investigation should be
done by an Officer not below the rank of a
Deputy Superintendent of Police
whether the allegations are true or
otherwise', and giving expression to
the legality of Rule 7 of the said Rules,
Sections 157(1)(b) and 157(2) of the
Cr.P.C. and Section 3 of the S.C.& S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
the petitioner would pray to the relief
extracted supra.
8. During arguments, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, besides laying emphasis
on those averments of the above criminal
original petition, would also
submit that the Assistant Director of
Prosecution cannot give his opinion as
it is in the case in hand; that it is a
case under the Special Act and a
special prosecution should have been
contemplated and investigated into
which the respondents 1 to 3 have failed to
do; that the Inspector of Police cannot
investigate a case arising out of
S.C.&S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, but only a Deputy Superintendent of
Police and Officers above in rank
could do the investigation as per the
relevant provisions of the said Rules.
At this juncture, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would submit the
following judgments:
1. 1999(III) CTC 464 (P.ALAGARSAMY vs.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-9 AND FOUR
OTHERS.
2. AIR 1992 SC 604(STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS vs. CH.BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS)
3. 1982 CRI.L.J. 872 (SHANTABAI AND
ANOTHER vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA)
9. In the first judgment
cited above, it is a case of the victim
lodging FIR for offences under Section
3(x)(i) of S.C. & S.T. ( Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989
r/w.Sections 323,341,355 and 147 against 5 persons
and the DSP deleted offence under
Section 3(x)(i) of 1989 Act and directed the
Inspector to take further action for
IPC offences, but no intimation was given
to the informant about the dropping of
offence under S.C.&S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the High
Court held that the law enforcing agencies
were unduly hasty in dropping the
main offences and acted in total disregard
to procedure and setting aside the
order of conviction, directed the S.P. to
appoint some other D.S.P. to
conduct fresh investigation under his direct
supervision and issued further
directions to follow proper procedure.
10. In the second judgment
cited above, the Honourable Apex Court has
held:
"In following categories of cases,
the High Court may in exercise of powers
under Art.226 or under S.482 of Cr.P.C.
may interfere in proceedings relating
to cognizable offences to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. However, power should be exercised
sparingly and that too in the rarest of
rare cases.
1.Where the allegations made in the
First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
2.Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under S.156(1 ) of the Code
except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the
Code.
3.Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
4.Where, the allegations in the F.I.R.
do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under
S.155(2) of the Code.
5.Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
6.Where there is an express legal
bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance
of the aggrieved party.
7.Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
It has been further held in this
judgment that
"Where the Order directing an
Inspector was one word under " investigate" in
respect of offences under S.5(1)(e) of
Corruption Act and Ss.1 61 and 165 of
Penal Code, the Inspector was not
clothed with valid legal authority to take
up the investigation and proceed with
the same within the meaning of S.5A(1)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act."
11. In the last judgment
cited on behalf of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court has held:
"Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection
of Civil Rights Act deals with insult or
attempt to insult on the ground of
untouchability a member of Scheduled Caste.
The word `insult' in the legal
parlance means to treat with offensive
disrespect or to offer indignity to a
person. The significance to be attached
to the words used would obviously
depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case, the occasion and the manner
in which the words are used and person
to whom they are addressed. Any act or
speech meant to hurt the feelings or
self-respect of another or to treat
a person with insolence or contempt by
words or action would obviously amount
to an insult. When a person belonging
to higher caste offers insult to
a Harijan or to a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste on the ground of his
caste, then the said act is presumed to
fall within the inhibition contained
in the section. In such cases, the
burden would shift on the accused to
establish that the act alleged to be
committed was not committed on the
ground of untouchability but on some other
ground. The quantum and nature of
proof required to displace the presumption
must vary according to the facts and
circumstances of each case."
The learned counsel would end up
his arguments praying to either allow the
criminal original petition or at least
order fresh investigation to be done.
12. In reply, the learned
Advocate General, Tamil Nadu appearing on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 3
along with the learned Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras, in his crisp
arguments would submit that neither the
petition could be allowed nor fresh
investigation be ordered in the case in
hand and once the Magistrate accepts
the report made by the Assistant Director
of Prosecution, there is no point in
going back much less ordering fresh
investigation since the order has
been passed based on the legal position of
the subject. The learned Advocate
General would further submit that the
inherent powers conferred by law
upon this Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. could be made use of only for
limited purposes, such as abuse of
process of law; that the extract of
the newspaper given in the complaint does
not at all contemplate any penal action
much less under the penal provisions
of the S.C. & S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act as it has been wrongly
invoked in the circumstances of the
case. On such arguments, the learned
Advocate General would pray to
dismiss the above criminal original petition
confirming the order of the learned
Magistrate.
The learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the fourth respondent would
also adopt the arguments of the learned
Advocate General regarding the subject
matter.
13. In consideration of the
facts pleaded, having regard to the
materials placed on record and upon
hearing the learned counsel for all the
parties as mentioned above, what comes
to be known is that the petitioner
alleging that he belongs to the
Scheduled Caste and that the statement
published in Tamil Daily Magazines
`Dina Thanthi' and ` Dina Malar' alleged to
have been uttered by the 4th respondent
in the nature of creating enmity,
hatred and ill-will between
different religious classes, castes and
communities, has filed a private
complaint before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Sivakasi as against the
fourth respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of
the S.C.&S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, Section 505(2) IPC and
Section 3(g) of the Religious Institutions
(Prevention of Misuse) Act and the
said Court has referred it to the first
respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
directing him to investigate the
complaint and submit a final report as
per its order dated 30.10.2002 and the
first respondent having obtained the
opinion of the Assistant Director of
Prosecution concerned, has filed his
final report along with the legal opinion
of the Assistant Director of
Prosecution on 14.11.2002 before the said
Magistrate and since the Magistrate
finding that the petitioner's complaint
did not satisfy the ingredients of
the offences alleged against the 4th
respondent, has rejected the complaint
of the petitioner, testifying the
validity of which the petitioner
has come forward to institute the above
criminal original petition seeking the
reliefs extracted supra.
14. At the outset, it is
necessary to discuss two aspects of the
case, the first one legal and
procedural and the second one factual which
would decide the case of the petitioner
ultimately. The legal cum procedural
aspect being one concerned with
Rules 5 to 7 of the S.C. & S.T (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules which are
relevant for consideration and in fact the
petitioner also heavily relies on these
Rules, not only laying emphasis on
these Rules but also extracting from
already decided cases, which have been
extracted supra.
15. The import of Rules 5 to 7
of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules could be
mentioned that an Officer in charge of a police
station on receipt of every information
relating to the commission of an
offence under the Act, shall
reduce the same to writing and may send the
substance of such report in writing by
post to the Superintendent of Police,
who after investigation either by
himself or by a Police Officer not below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police shall make an order in writing to the
officer-in-charge
of the concerned Police Station to enter the substance of
that information to be entered in
the book to be maintained by that Police
Station; that if any atrocity is
committed on the members of the S.C. and
S.T. communities within his
jurisdiction, the District Magistrate or Sub
Divisional Magistrate or D.S.P.
shall immediately visit the place of
occurrence to assess the extent of
atrocity, loss of life or damage to the
property and submit a report forthwith
to the Government besides doing such
other things as contemplated under
Rule 6 and under Rule 7. The Investigating
Officer shall be a Police
Officer not below the rank of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police and the said
Investigating Office shall be appointed
by the State Government/Director
General of Police/Superintendent of Police
after taking into account his past
experience, sense of ability and justice to
perceive the implications of the case
and investigate it along with right
lines within the shortest possible time
and on investigation, the said Officer
shall submit the report to the
Superintendent of Police who would in turn
forward the same to the Director
General of Police of the State Government;
that the Home Secretary and the
Social Welfare Secretary to the State
Government, Director of Prosecution,
the officer-in-charge of prosecution and
the Director General of Police shall
review by the end of every quarter the
position of all investigations done by
the Investigating Officer.
16. While such being the
procedures contemplated by the Rules
prescribed thereunder, it is a mystery
as to why the petitioner has not chosen
to follow these procedures so as to
make his complaint before the authorities
concerned, but bypassing the
procedures, the petitioner has gone straight to
the Magistrate in filing the private
complaint.
` 17. On the part of the
Magistrate too, without having regard to these
Rules, he has entertained the
complaint filed by the petitioner and has
forwarded the same as though it is like
the other complaints normally being
filed before him, which are general
in nature. Since the S.C. & S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act being a
Special Act, having the over-riding
effect on other general laws, the
Magistrate should have outright rejected the
complaint directing the petitioner
to seek resort to the relevant rules of
procedures established by law and since
the Magistrate did not adopt the
procedures contemplated thereunder
law, it has given way for many
precipitations.
18. On the part of the
petitioner too, though he now comes forward to
allege that the Investigating Officer
must be the Deputy Superintendent of
Police and not an Inspector of
Police, he himself has not chosen to file the
complaint in the manner contemplated
under the Rules, but for no reason
assigned, has chosen to file the
private complaint before the Magistrate.
19. When the Rules
contemplate as to where the complaint is to be
lodged, without trying that source and
lodging the complaint before that
particular authority before whom the
complaint would lie, the petitioner, for
no reason assigned, has filed the
same before the Magistrate seeking
direction, which is irregular, as a
result of which every thing has gone wrong
in the whole affair connecting to the
complaint.
20. Coming to the factual
aspect of the case, the petitioner does not
seem to have been an aggrieved party,
since the petitioner is born, bred and
continues to be a Hindu S.C. man
whereas the remark said to have been uttered
by the 4th respondent is only against
those who enjoy the privileges as
Christians being members of the
Christian religion and got converted to the
Hindu religion for the purpose of
enjoying the job opportunities. Since the
petitioner does not fall under this
category, he is not the aggrieved party
entitled to question the validity of
such a remark said to have been made on
the part of the 4 th respondent since
he does not have the locus standi to do
so.
21. Secondly, the statement
alleged to have been made by the 4th
respondent is based on facts which are
not at all either denied or rebutted by
the petitioner in his complaint
stating that no such conversion has taken
place and that it is a false statement.
Even taking for granted that the 4th
respondent has uttered the said
remarks, extracted in Tamil in the preceding
paragraph, regarding certain members of
Christian religion getting themselves
converted into Hinduism for the
purpose of enjoying the job opportunities in
the past. Since being a fact,
neither this statement is denied nor
established as false on the part of
the petitioner in his pleadings nor even
an attempt has been made by him to the
said effect and calling a spade a
spade, cannot be an insult to the
S.C. and S.T. community men nor the
statement could create enmity or
hatred or ill-will between different
religious classes, which is a reality
and therefore neither there is anything
wrong nor could the petitioner, who is
not that category having enjoyed the
privileges as a Christian and
getting himself converted as a Hindu for job
opportunities, can have the locus
standi to testify the veracity of the
statement.
22. Further, since the
case of the petitioner is that the 4th
respondent has committed the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the
S.C.&S.T.(P.A.)Act, 1989, 505(2)
IPC and Section 3(g) of the Religious
Institutions (Prevention of Misuse)
Act, 1988, it has become incumbent on the
part of this Court to extract the above
three Sections:
"Section 3 of the
S.C.&S.T.(P.A.)Act,1989: PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENCES OF
ATROCITIES
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe -
(i) ...
(ii) ...
(iii) ...
(iv) ...
(v) ...
(vi) ...
(vii) ...
(viii) ...
(ix) ...
(x)intentionally insults or intimidates
with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view."
"Section 505(2) IPC:
STATEMENTS CREATING OR PROMOTING ENMITY, HATRED OR
ILL-WILL BETWEEN CLASSES: (2) Whoever
makes, publishes or circulates any
statement or report containing rumour
or alarming news with intent to create
or promote, or which is likely to
create or promote, on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity,
hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racial, language or regional
groups or castes or communities, shall
be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both."
"Section 3(g) of the Religious
Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988:
"3. PROHIBITION OR USE OF
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES - No
religious institution or manager
thereof shall use or allow the use of any
premises belonging to, or under the
control of, the institution -
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) ...
(e) ...
(f) ...
(g) for the doing of any act which
promotes or attempts to promote disharmony
of feelings of enmity, hatred or
ill-will between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes
or communities; or ..."
23. So far as the first
and second of the above Sections viz.
Section 3(1)(x) of the
S.C.&S.T.(P.A.)Act, 1989 and Section 505(2) IPC are
concerned, `intention' is the
pre-condition for the commission of the offence
under these Sections. Nowhere the
petitioner has made it available the
required `intention' on the part
of the 4th respondent to indulge in such
offences mentioned therein nor has he
at least made it clear as to the object
sought to be achieved by the fourth
respondent in making such statements or
remarks so as to apply these Sections
for the imputation alleged to have been
made on the part of the fourth
respondent.
24. So far as the third
above Section i.e. Section 3(g) of the
Religious Institutions (Prevention of
Misuse) Act,1988 is concerned, it
requires the premises or the
religious institution i.e. the Kanchimatt to
have been used to promote disharmony
or feeling of enmity or hatred or
ill-will between different religious,
racial, language or religion groups or
castes or communities. Here again,
the Section requires the use of the
premises or religious institution
as a place or instrument for promoting
disharmony or hatred or ill-will. That
the framers of law have not intended
an isolated event or utterance but
made use of the term `use', which would
mean habitual, well-designed with
continuity making use of the premises or
institution for repeated commission
of the act in the usual manner and
therefore an isolated or casual
utterance or reference made cannot be
construed to mean using the premises
or the religious institution since the
term `use', at this juncture, has got
wider connotation in the context of the
case. Neither the remarks alleged
to have been uttered by the fourth
respondent could be termed as
objectionable even considering that the said
respondent actually uttered the same
nor at the stretch of imagination could
it be construed that the fourth
respondent is using the ` religious
institution' to promote disharmony of
feelings or hatred or illwill much less
between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or
communities and therefore it could
only be decided that the petitioner has
cast his imagination too far in
contemplating that an offence could be made
out under this provision of law.
Moreover, a reading of the remarks would
only mean that it has come out of the
noble mind and with the honest intention
to promote harmony among different
groups of the Hindu religion, particularly
those Associations which follow the
footsteps of Dr.Ambedkar.
25. All these Sections could
be brought into play only when factually
a case is made out on the face of
the complaint particularly in the case in
hand pertaining to the statement
alleged to have been made by the 4th
respondent. This statement is
alleged to have been published in `Dina
Thanthi' and `Dina Malar' Tamil
dailies, but the petitioner has not even made
the Editors and Publishers of these
newspapers as parties to the proceedings,
who ought to have been impleaded as
parties to the proceeding if the statement
is objectionable since the newspapers
are not supposed to carry out such
objectionable or illegal utterances
of, whomsoever is the maker of the
statement. From the very fact that the
petitioner has not impleaded those
persons as parties to the
proceedings would not only mean that they are not
objectionable statements but also the
petitioner with some ill-motivated
designs and at the instigations of
those who have some basic grievances or
hatred or ill-will or motive against
the 4th respondent has come forward to
initiate these proceedings.
Therefore, besides being the petitioner not
having the locus standi to question the
validity of such paper publication
taking it as genuine and made with
intent to injure the religious and caste
feelings, absolutely no case worth
to be considered under the relevant
Sections of law has been put up by the
petitioner and therefore this Court is
left with no choice but to arrive at
the only irresistible conclusion that no
valid case has been put up by
the petitioner nor is there any pith or
substance in the averments of the
petition worth considering for any purpose
much less warranting granting of the
relief sought for and it could be safely
concluded that the Court below has done
nothing than what is required in the
circumstances of he case in rejecting
the complaint filed by the petitioner by
its order dated 18.11.2002.
Needless to mention that the above criminal
original petition equally becomes
liable to be dismissed.
In result,
(i) the above Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed.
(ii)Consequently, the alternative
relief of the petitioner for fresh
investigation in respect of the
petitioner's complaint dated 28.10.20 02 also
does not arise at all and the same is
also dismissed.
Index: Yes
Internet: yes
Rao
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Protection of Civil Right Unit,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Superintendent of
Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of
Police,
Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.