IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 685 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- SC.NO.164/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SAIDALAVI, S/O.BEERANKUTTY AGED 28, AKKARAPPURAM VEEDU, MUNDAKULAM, MUTHUVALLUR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM (DT). BY ADV. MR.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. BOMMY, AGED 38, D/O.BOMMAN, MUTTANGA, ANACAMP NAIKKA COLONY, NOOLPUZHA AMSOM, MUTTHANGA, SULTHAN BATHERY, WYNAD (DT.). R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.M.C. No. 685 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure-B final report, Annexure-C charge and all further proceedings quashed. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.164 of 2007 pending before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta for having committed offences punishable under sections 341 and 354 IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. As per the prosecution allegation, the incident is stated to have occurred on 2-1- 2007 at 6 P.M. The allegation is that the petitioner herein caught hold of the hand of the complainant and pulled her Crl.M.C. 685/09 2 with intent to outrage her modesty. The police on recording her statement, conducted the investigation and filed final report. Cognizance was taken and the mater was referred to the Sessions Court for trial, since the said offence is only triable by the Sessions Court. 3. The petitioner points out that neither the F.I.R. nor the final report would indicate that, even assuming all what prosecution says is true, the accused did not know that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and if that be so, offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act will not be attracted. 4. It is difficult to accept the above contention. The offence now alleged is under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, that does not indicate that there should be a prior knowledge that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste community. It has to be proved on evidence. If the petitioner had a case that offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act will not lie against him, he ought to have moved the court below for discharge or dropping of that offence. Crl.M.C. 685/09 3 5. This petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court below, if so advised, in accordance with law. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.