BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.R.C.(MD)No.45 of 2014 1.Alagu 2.Tamilvanan 3.Shanmuganathan 4.Kannan : Petitioner/B-Party versus 1.The II Class Executive Magistrate- cum-Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai, Ramnad District.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramnad District.
: Respondents/Complainant Prayer Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/19594/2013, dated 18.10.2013, on the file of the fiRs.respondent and quash the same.
!For Petitioners : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.
side) :ORDER
Arguments advanced by Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate for the respondents are heard.
The materials available on record are also perused.
2.The petitioneRs.who are the non-members of the scheduled caste and schedule tribes, have come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case against the order of the II Class Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar).Thiruvadanai, dated 18.10.2013, made in the proceedings of the said Tahsildar bearing Na.Ka.No.A3/19594/2013.
3.The members of the Adi-dravida community, who have converted their dry lands into residential area and are living there for several yeaRs.were suffering for decades without proper access to take their cattle, carts and vehicles to their colony.
Having waited for several years in vain for the authorities to take steps to provide access road to their colony, they decided to form a road themselves on their patta lands.
While they were in the process of laying the road in portions of their patta lands, the petitioners and other membeRs.who are caste Hindus, do not want the people of the depressed community to live in dignity having an access to their colony.
Hence, they raised objections and prevented them from laying the road leading to their colony, on a false pretext that the members of the colony were encroaching upon the land belonging to the petitioners herein.
4.Pursuant to the said occurrence, one Velu belonging to the depressed community, a resident of the colony, preferred a complaint on the file of Thondi Police Station.
In the said complaint, besides alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code, he had also alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as the revision petitioners and their supporters made a mention of their community in an insulting way in the view of public.
An unscrupulous police officer, who received the complaint, failed to register a case and place the case file for investigation of a police officer to be appointed under Rule 7 of the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.
On the other hand, she chose to assign a petition number to the same and invite the revision petitioners to submit a counter complaint.
After receiving such a counter complaint, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, submitted a report to the Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar) that a threat to peace was apprehended ny the acts on the part of the members of the downtrodden community and the members of the caste Hindus of the said village, due to the dispute over the forming of an approach road leading to the colony of the members of the scheduled castes.
The then Tahsildar also without verifying who was the trouble monger and without applying his mind as to whether there was any substance in the complaint or counter complaint of Alagu, arbitrarily passed an order issuing a show cause notice to the petitioners herein who are caste Hindus, showing them as members of ".B".
party and also the members of scheduled castes of the said village, showing them as ".A".
party, as to why they should not be asked to execute a bond for keeping peace for a specified period.
Of course, while issuing such a show cause notice, the Magistrate himself should have followed the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C.by indicating the terms of the provisional order.
The petitioneRs.who are members of ".B".
party and the members of the scheduled castes who are shown as members of ".A".
party were given opportunity to appear and raise their objections for the proposed final order.
While the said proceeding was pending, the revision petitioners have chosen to approach this Court with the present revision under Section 397 and Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5.FiRs.of all, the revision itself shall not be maintainable in view of the bar provided under Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which says that the power of revision shall not be exercised in respect of an order which is interlocutory in nature.
The impugned order dated 18.10.2013 is not a final order and it is only an interlocutory order calling upon the members of ".A".
party and the members of ".B".
party, to appear and show case why they should not be asked to furnish security for keeping peace.
Hence, such an order can be construed only as an interlocutory order, which does not decide any of the rights of the members of either of the parties.
6.Apart from the fact of maintainability of this revision, there are other factors disturbing the conscience of this Court which drive the Court to dismiss this revision with the following observations.
7.This Court, in order to verify what transpired in this case, summoned the records of the Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai and also the file maintained in Thondi Police station.
Upon perusing the said records, this Court was shocked to note that the police officer (Sub Inspector of Police).who received the complaint from Velu and the counter complaint from the fiRs.petitioner and the Inspector of Police, who submitted a report to the Tahsildar for initiation of proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.have acted in a biased manner, supporting the unethical claim of the revision petitioners and disregarding the legitimate claim of ".A".
party to have an approach road to their colony through their own land.
The very intention of the revision petitioneRs.who are shown as members of ".B".
party, was to deny the members of ".A".
party, who are members of scheduled castes, the benefit of having an access road to their colony.
8.In this regard, it is pertinent to note that a natham poramboke land abutting the school came to be assigned in favour of Alagu, who admittedly did have another land over which he had put up his house and was residing.
It is obvious from the records that the revenue authorities, who did not take steps to provide house sites for the members of the scheduled castes and leave them to make their own arrangement by converting their lands into house sites for the purpose of their residence, had chosen to allot unoccupied natham land in favour of Alagu, the fiRs.petitioner herein.
It also transpires that subsequently, the fiRs.petitioner Alagu created a document as if the same was donated again to the Government for the use of the school.
Such ingenious methods were adopted to capture the unoccupied natham lands with the help of the officials and to deprive the members of the scheduled castes to seek assignment of such lands which forced them to have their colony in their own agricultural land into house sites.
They were also sought to be prevented from having an access road even through their own lands.
9.Subsequently, there was change of guards and the officers who took charge both in the police department and also in the revenue department.
Due to the intervention of the Collector, appropriate steps were taken and concrete road has been laid connecting the main road and the colony.
The present revision seems to be one of the attempts made by the revision petitioners to deny even the basic human rights to the members of the scheduled castes to live in dignity.
It is also brought to the notice of the Court by the Tahsildar, who is present in person in the Court, that the petitioners have chosen to file a suit against the forming of the said road connecting the main road and the colony.
The number of attempts made by the petitioners to prevent the members of the colony from having an access to their colony from the main road will show the mentality of the petitioners with which they have acted and are still acting.
Such disturbing factors are highlighted to show that, even after a lapse of 67 years from the date we got independence from the foreign ruler, the sentimental slavery which is sought to be enforced on the basis of the caste has not reduced.
10.It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the impugned order had lapsed due to passage of time, as it was intended to be in force for six months only and 10+ months have elapsed.
In view of the above said observations regarding maintainability of the revision petition and also taking into consideration the fact that the impugned order itself has lapsed, this Court is of the view that the revision petition deserves dismissal.
However, in order to render complete justice, this Court makes it clear that the Station House Officer of Thondi Police Station, in order to avoid a charge being made against him for an offence under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, may take action on the complaint of Velu, dated 17.08.2013, by registering a case for any I.P.C.offence disclosed by the contents of the complaint, besides an offence under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Central Ordinance No.1 of 2014 and place the matter before the officer competent to appoint the Investigating Officer.
11.The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To 1.The II Class Executive Magistrate- cum-Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai, Ramnad District.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramnad District.