IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2500 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.329/2008 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION. SC.274/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- JOSHI K.L., S/O.KANHIRATHINGAL LAZER, AGED 42 YEARS, JOJO FABRICS, VENKITANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJI, W/O.RAJAN, KOROTT HOUSE, MECHERIPADI, VENKITANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P. RAVEENDRA BABU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2500 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the defacto complainant in S.C.No.274/2009 on the file of Sessions Court, Thrissur. Based on the F.I. Statement of the first respondent, Crime No.329/ 2008 was registered for offences under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-III final report, based on which, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on Annexure-II certificate, which establishes that first respondent is not a member of the Scheduled CRMC 2500/09 2 Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but Hindu Ezhava, argued that an offence under the Act, therefore, is not attracted. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that first respondent is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or schedule Tribe, but an Ezhava lady, as seen under Annexure-II certificate. The question, therefore, is whether an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act would lie against the petitioner. 3. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act would lie only if petitioner assaulted or used force on any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, with intend to dishonour or outrage her modesty. When first respondent is, admittedly, not a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but, Ezhava, an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act cannot be alleged against the petitioner, even if he had assaulted or used force against the first respondent with intend to dishonour or outrage her modesty. Annexure-I F.I. Statement shows that allegation against the petitioner is that he committed the offence against the first respondent, CRMC 2500/09 3 alleging that it was committed because she is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. As first respondent is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, petitioner cannot be tried for an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Hence, prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is quashed. But, petitioner is to be tried for the other offences under Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge, in the light of the order quashing the case under the Act, is directed to transfer the case to the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court for trial of the offences under Indian Penal Code. Petition is disposed. 10th august, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv