IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 18.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1208 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2007, 1 of 2008 & 1 of 2010 Palanisamy .. Petitioner/Accused -Vs- State Represented by Inspector of Police B-6, Police Station Coimbatore .. Respondent/complainant Petition filed under section 397 and 401 Crl.P.C., against the order dated 25.07.2007 made in C.M.P.No.2936 of 2006 in Special S.C.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and the Special Judge for SC/ST Cases Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed For Respondent : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Public Prosecutor For proposed party/ Petitioner in M.P.No.1/2010: Mr.B.Ravi for Mr.S.S.Raghavan ORDER This revision arises against the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge and the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Coimbatore in C.M.P.Nos.2936 of 2006 and 388 of 2007 on 25.7.2007. By the orders under challenge, the Court below dismissed the petition moved by the petitioner herein seeking discharge in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2006 on his file. In such case, the petitioner faces prosecution for offences under Sections 3(1)(iv)(v)(viii) and 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989. In short, the offences relate to wrongful occupation and cultivation or wrongful dispossession of properties from the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or initiation of false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against them. What gives rise to the case is an agreement entered into by the petitioner in respect of land which was in the possession of the de facto complainant (now deceased) on 19.6.1987. As far as the facts are concerned, we may https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stop here. 2. Heard Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent and Mr.B.Ravi for Mr.S.S.Raghavan for the proposed respondent. 3. Though the petition seeking discharge came to be dismissed by the Court below for several reasons informed by it, the present petition would succeed on the sole ground that the agreement which forms the basis of the complaint was entered into on 19.6.1987 whereas the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 was brought into force only on 30.1.1990. Therefore, the actions of the petitioner in entering upon an agreement on 19.6.1987, on which date, he could not have offended the provisions of this Act and all actions taken by the petitioner pursuant thereto, cannot be said to have constituted offences under the Act. 4. To add one final factual circumstance, we would inform that a suit for specific performance moved by the petitioner came to be decreed and the Appeal thereagainst moved by the de facto complainant was dismissed. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition succeeds and the revision is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed. 6. As it is brought to the notice of this Court, that civil actions are pending between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the de facto complainant, it is to be observed that the present order shall have no bearing thereupon. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. kua/smn Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To The Principal District and Sessions Judge and the Special Judge for SC/ST Cases, Coimbatore. + 1 cc to Mr. S.S. Raghavan, Advocate SR No.64318 + 2 ccs to Mr. N.A. Nissar Ahmed, Advocate SR No.64382, 62061 UG(CO) SR/8.11.2011 Crl.R.C.No.1208 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/