TN-63-1066, plying between Mudukulathur and Sayalkudi.The duty time was between 5.00 hours to 13.00 hours.After completing the duty, he handed overthe cash and key to the successor.By that time, it was 14.00 hours.Due to the death of three members of Thevar community on 30.10.2012 in Paramakudi area, the vehicle movement were completed suspended including the Government Transport buses.The preventive measures were not effective and genuine.The youthbelonging to Thevar Community were allowed to run their show.The youth werewearing banians in yellow-mixed green colour with the figures of the casteleaders such as Thevar and Maruthupandiar and travelled in a vehicle with acaste flag tied on the vehicle.The villagers felt that the youth wererushing the vehicle only to attack them and their property.It is not knownas to how the driver of the said vehicle died leaving others to escapeunhurt.The petitioner was suggesting the people who were innocent and hisname has been included only to terrorise the members of the weaker section ofParamakudi.On behalf of them, the petitioner was assisting in Court asLawyer.The petitioner has no role in the alleged conspiracy.(1)The confessional statement of Shanmugam (A-5), Arumugasamy (A-6), Bala @ Parambai Bala (A-7) and (2)The statements of P.W.7 Pandidurai, P.W.8-Muthukrishnan, P.W.9- Sethuraman, P.W.20-Thangadurai and P.W.21 Thirumurugan.14.They have detailed the participation of petitioners 1 and 2 in thecommunity meeting held on 28.10.2012 at Pambuvilunthan Village, wherein they were alleged to have provoked Adi Dravida Community men to indulge incriminal acts against the Thevar Community.Fifteen Thevar Community men of Melaperunkarai, who were on their way to Pasumpon Village in a Mahindra Van, were waylaid, chased and attacked by Adi Dravida youth near Pambuvilunthan Tank on 30.10.2012 at 11.15 hours.The occupants escaped unhurt and the van driver Sivakumar was beaten to death on the spot and the van was damaged.This is the incident in respect of which acase in Emaneswaram Police Station in Cr.No.147 of 2012 was registered against 31 Adi Dravida Community men.16.Same day occurrence:On the same day, at 14.00 hours, two Thevar youth who came across Ponnaiahpuram in a motorcycle, were waylaid by Adi Dravida youth and were beaten to death on the spot besides causing damage to the motorcycle.17.Another case in Paramakudi Town Police Station in Crime No.449 of 2012 was registered against 65 Adi Dravida Community men.19.Completion of Investigation:He belonged to Scheduled Caste Community.At the time of Thevar Guru Pooja held on 28th, 29th and 30thOctober 2012, he was working as a Conductor in the bus, bearing RegistrationNo.Therefore, the petitioner along with othershave to stay back in the depot itself.On 05.11.2012, he was pickedup by the Police.When he was produced before the Magistrate, the Magistratedid not ask him anything and mechanically passed the order of remand.Afterfinal enquiry, the police have added the petitioner as Accused No.42 inCr.In the bail order, the observation runs as follows:?The petitioner is in custody for the past 46 days.The petitioner/accused is working at some other place at the time of occurrence and to provethe same, certificate from the competent authority is produced.Materialwitnesses have been examined.?The Investigating Agency had removed the names of fivemen at the time of filing of the charge sheet.Despite the production of thecertificate showing that the petitioner was on duty at the time of allegedoccurrence on 30.10.2012, the Investigating Agency has deliberately includedhim as accused.Therefore, the charges must be quashed.6.In the supporting affidavit of Chandra Bose, it is stated that inrespect of innocent murder that took place on 30.10.2012, the petitioner hasbeen added as accused unnecessarily.7.The Investigating Agency has preferred five persons belonging todominant community and made them as eye witnesses to the alleged conspiracy.They are the stock witnesses.The allegedconspiracy is stated to have taken place on 28.10.2012 at 6.30 p.m. Thisdelay will expose both the author of the statement as well as theInvestigating Agency.Then they participated in the marriage of Mr.Periyasamy, anAdvocate at Madurai.It was at about 7.00p.m.The petitioner had no occasion to go to Paramakudi in the evening at6.30 p.m. Therefore, the charges are vague and it must be quashed.Out of40,000 people in and around Paramakudi, about 30,000 people belonged to Thevar Community.This Taluk is known for the caste clashes which are mostlyinitiated by the dominant community due to its economic and social strength.The members of the Scheduled Caste are at the receiving end.9.As the ruling party is controlled by the dominant community, therewas a police firing on 11.09.2011 and seven persons belonging to ScheduledCaste died in that firing.The CBI is investigating the crime pertaining tofiring and it is almost over.10.On 30.10.2012, the State sponsored celebration of Thevar Jayanthiwas organised in Pasumpon Village in Kamuthi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District.Thepetitioner's name has been included on account of the statement recorded on01.02.2013 stated to have been given by Pandidurai, Muthukrishnan,Sethuraman, Thangadurai and Thirumurugan (list of witnesses 12 to 16) who allbelonged to Thevar community.11.The petitioner was assisting the officers of CBI who wereinvestigating the death of seven dalits due to police firing on 11.09.2011.The petitioner had given 18 documents to the said Agency.This co-operationto the CBI has been treated by the State Police as if he is working againstthe interest of the State Police.The petitioner's name has beenincluded as if he was a party to the alleged conspiracy.13.The sixth respondent has filed the counter affidavit alleging thedetails of the statement of witnesses who have implicated the accusedpersons, as follows:(1)2004 MLJ (Crl.) 360 (Ms.Arokia Mary Lucia v. The State of TamilNadu, wherein it has been held as follows:?29.In the above circumstances, there is no myth in examining thosewitnesses, who are all the accused in the petitioner's earlier complaint withwhom the police have joined hands with, in order to register a false caseagainst the petitioner, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate andthe witnesses also, like the parrots, have repeated distorted and inventedthe inconsistent facts of the case artificially recorded under Section 161Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in a mechanical and unbelievable manner andthis Court cannot be carried away by such artificially made up case failingto resort to the rescue of persons like the petitioner, which would onlyamount to encouraging such false cases deliberately foisted to cheat thesystem which, if not quashed, would only give the way for dishonest andunreasonable officers maligning and marring the authority of law and thejudicial convictions.30.Therefore, with the given opportunity, such falsely registered casesput down with the iron hand would serve the purpose not only to rescue thosevictims of such cases such as the petitioner from the clutches of those, whoregister the cases crossing the barriers and norms of law but also wouldserve as a deterrent measure for such authorities from taking advantage ofthe loopholes to foist the cases against innocent and service minded persons,who are wedded to the social and right causes, like the petitioner.No doubt, the employermight have given the certificate stating that the petitioner was elsewhere.Thesegrounds may be good grounds for the plea of acquittal, if the plea isestablished during trial and it is not a ground for quashing the proceedings,when there is no supporting material.28.The fact remains that already final report has been filed before theCourt.The very plea taken by the petitioners coupled with the counteraffidavit filed detailing the materials which implicate the petitionersherein would go to show that it is not a case for discharge.The plea takenby the accused persons herein no doubt requires careful scrutiny, detailedexamination and evaluation and if it is established by clinching evidencethat it is true, then they can place the plea for acquittal before the TrialCourt.30.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.4.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.5.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.6.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.7.The Inspector of Police, Emaneswaram Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

Cited provisions: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code