Every little action that causes annoyance not offence under SC/ST Act unless it was done due to victim's caste: Madras High Court

Every little action that causes annoyance cannot be considered an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) unless it was intentional and done because of the caste of the victim, the Madras High Court recently said [S Velraj v The State]. .In a judgement passed on March 8 this year, Justice RN Manjula of the Madras High Court said that the allegations made by a subordinate employee, the defacto complainant in the case, that the petitioner officers made "threatening gestures" and "passed whimsical smiles," at him, did not disclose any cognisable offence under the Act."Every little action or annoyance cannot be understood as an offence committed und SC/ST Act, unless it was proved to be intentional and something done because of the caste of the victim. The petitioners as officers of the second respondent could have sometimes remarked about his lapse or the way he conducted himself in the office or while discharging the duties. That cannot be given with a criminal colour and portrayed as offences of intimidation, harassment or humiliation contemplated under the Special Act," the Court said.Court proceedings cannot be used as a weapon to wreak the vengeance, the single-judge underscored.It, therefore, quashed the proceedings initiated before a trial court against three senior officials of Air India, who were charged under the Act for allegedly having harassed their subordinate belonging to the SC/ST community. The Court also said that all parties to the case were Air India employees, the alleged offence should be considered as one that occurred at the workplace and the petitioners were 'public servants' as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Hence, the prosecuting agency should have obtained prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code before filing its chargesheet, the Court stated.As per the complainant, the alleged harassment and humiliation had taken place on several occasions between the years 2018 and 2019. The complainant had accused three senior officials of such harassment. However, the Court said that prosecution had not inquired into the specific allegations made against the three accused persons and had simply filed one common chargesheet that too, after much delay, the judge said."For every occurrence, individual complaints ought to have been made at the relevant point of time as against each accused and such allegations cannot be combined in one complaint and culminate into a single charge sheet," the High Court said. Further, the single-judge noted that records showed that the complainant had the habit of making multiple complaints to his superiors and had sent at least 120 emails and letters of complaints over the years to senior authorities. He had also faced disciplinary proceedings for several lapses at work, including an incident that had delayed an Air India flight's take-off by an hour and a half. ."In all probabilities, the materials do not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners in respect of the charges leveled against them. In view of the holistic consideration of the materials, I feel the proceedings should be quashed in order to meet out the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law," the Court said while allowing the petitions filed by the three officers. Senior Counsel A Ramesh and advocate BA Sujay Prasanna appeared for the three petitioner Air India officials. Government Advocate on the criminal side, A Gopinath appeared for the respondent State government. Advocate V Gandhimathi appeared for the complainant, the second respondent in the case..[Read Judgment]