Basant Kumar Ranka v. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,Flower Bazaar Range,Chennai – 600 001 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.17440 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007Basant Kumar Ranka.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,Flower Bazaar Range,Chennai – 600 001.2.The Inspector of Police,C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station,Chennai... Respondents Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the recordsin Crime No.290 of 2007 on the file of the C-1 Flower Bazaar PoliceStation, Chennai, the second respondent herein and quash the same.For Petitioner : M/s. G.M.Syed FaruddinFor Respondents : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)O R D E RThe above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by thepetitioner to call for the records in Crime No.290 of 2007 on thefile of the C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai, the secondrespondent herein and quash the same.2.The prosecution case is as follows:One E.Stephen Raj, Son of Iruthayam, is the defactocomplainant herein has lodged a complaint with the second respondentpolice, stating that on 18.05.2007, at about 6.00 p.m, he had gone tothe petitioner/accused shop, situated at Old No.151/New No.168,N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai-1, to buy a silver gift article. TheSalesmen of the shop showed the article which was covered by plasticcover. The defacto complainant asked the salesman to open the coverand show the article. The salesman refused to open the cover saying https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that he was an employee and that if he wanted to view the article, hecould contact the owner of the shop. The salesman spoke to him in avery degrading manner. Thereafter, the defacto complainant contactedthe owner of the shop, who also supported the employee. The defactocomplainant told the shop owner that they are not acting in thecorrect manner for which all the employees surrounded him and triedto assault him and used the caste name of "para jathi", whileaddressing him. Immediately, the defacto complainant lodged acomplaint with the second respondent herein on 18.05.2007 at 21.00hrs. The respondent police received the complaint and registered acase in Crime No.290 of 2007 on an alleged offence under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.3.On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner's son wasarrested and released on bail. The petitioner was also granted bail.4.Now, the petitioner has contended that due to pressure andinfluence of some higher officials and due to previous enmity, thecase was hurriedly altered to Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the petitioner herein and his son,Mr.Kapil Ranka. The petitioner contended that his son, Mr.KapilRanka was arrested and remanded on 19.05.2007 and was released onbail by order dated 23.05.2007. The petitioner also moved CriminalOriginal Petition No.15038 of 2007 before this Court. This Courtdirected the learned Principal Sessions Judge to consider the bailpetition of the petitioner on the very same day of his surrender. Asper the Honourable Court order, the petitioner surrendered before thePrincipal Sessions Judge on 08.06.2007 and he was granted bail.5.The petitioner further contended that due to previousenmity, the respondent police, under the direction and influence ofthe higher officials had set up the defacto complainant to harass thepetitioner. Hence, a false case had been foisted against them.6.Further, the petitioner contended that there is no specificallegation against the petitioner and his son for using the word"para jathi". The First Information Report disclosed that thepetitioners attempted to assault the defacto complainant and used theword "para jathi" while addressing the defacto complainant.7.Further, the petitioner has contended that he does not knowTamil and does not know the meaning of the word "para jathi".Further, it is not customary for a shop owner to question and enquireabout the caste and community of customer. His aim is only to dobusiness. Further, the petitioner has contended that making use ofthe said Stephenraj as a trump card, the police wants to harass theentire family. The petitioner is an income tax assessee and hailsfrom a decent family.8.The petitioner further contends that the defactocomplainant is a Christian and so the SC/ST Act will not apply for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Christian. Further, the petitioner has no necessity to use the word'para jathi'.9.The petitioner cited the following citations in support ofhis case:-(1)2006(4) Crimes 191, clearly held that offence must be committedby a person, that such a person is member of SC/ST.(2)2006 (Vol.I), Crimes 767, Madhyapradesh clearly held that merelycalling a person by his caste without any intention of insulting orintimidating will not amount to an offence under SC/ST Act.(3)2002 Criminal Law Journal 3407, Andhra Pradesh, has held thatmere knowledge of a community of a person is not sufficient to invokeSection 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.(4)2002 Vol.2 Criminal Law Journal 1207 and 2000 Criminal LawJournal 1978(13), Allahabad & Orissa High Courts have clearly heldthat simply addressing a person without any intention to insult willnot amount to an offence.10.It is further stated in the affidavit that there was somedispute between one T.T.Sekar and the respondent police andpetitioner. The said dispute entered into a compromise for a sum ofRs.1,52,000,00. The compromise happened at police station underthreat and coercion. Further, the Inspector of Police, C-2, ElephantGate Police Station, under threat and coercion collected Rs.85 lakhsfrom the petitioner based on the unlawful and illegal documentscreated. The petitioner had filed Criminal Original PetitionNo.30459 of 2006 against the second respondent herein for quashingthe compromise in C.C.No.501 of 2006 on an alleged offence underSection 420 and 506(ii) of IPC.11.The petitioner further stated that he was not present atthe time of occurrence. The petitioner had filed a case against thesecond respondent herein which is pending on the file of VIIIMetropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. This is also one of theground for proving the enmity between the petitioner and the secondrespondent herein.12.The learned counsel for the respondent argued the matter onbehalf of the respondents. 13.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andafter hearing the arguments of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perusal of the ingredients of the First Information Report,the Court is of the view that,(1)It is not crystal clear that the petitioner and his son,directly used the word 'para jathi' against the defacto complainant.(2)The occurrence happened at 6.00 p.m, but the complaint waslodged at 9.00 p.m. There was 3 hours delay in lodging thecomplaint, even though it takes only 10 minutes to walk from theoccurrence place to the police station. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3)The First Information Report revealed that the employees of thepetitioner assembled and attempted to assault the defactocomplainant, when they used the word 'para jathi'.(4)There is no specific allegation in the complaint about the exactperson from whose mouth, the word 'para jathi' had come out.14.Hence, this Court is warranted to interfere in theproceedings in Crime No.290 of 2007 on the file of C-1, Flower BazaarPolice Station, Chennai, the second respondent herein, and quash thesame. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.17440 of 2007is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar mraTo1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,Flower Bazaar Range, Chennai – 600 001.2.The Inspector of Police,C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station,Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras1 cc To Mr.G.M.Syed Fasiuddin, Advocate, SR.34883.Crl.O.P.No.17440 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 VS(CO)RVL 10.08.2009