Madras High Court
C.Ravikumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The … on 7 July, 2026
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07-07-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
C.Ravikumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by
The Superintendent of Police
Theni District, Theni.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Periyakulam Sub Division, Theni District.
3. The Inspector of Police
Thenkarai Police Station
Theni District.
4. Ambrose
The President
South East India Union of Seventh Day Adventis
No. 197 GST Road
Vandalore, Chennai - 600 048.
5. Arulananthan Kovil
The Principal
SDA Metric Higher Secondary School
Kallipatti Village, Periyakulam Taluk
Theni District.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
6. Daniel James
Treasurer
SDA Metric Higher Secondary School
Kallipatti Village
Periyakulam District
Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer:
To direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the
respondents No.4 to 6 based on the petitioners representation dated
02.06.2026.
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Shankar Ganesh
For Respondent : Mr.C.Susikumar for R1 to R3
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Mr.V.Malaiyendran - for R4
for Mr.S.Baskar Mathuram
M/s.M.Solaisamy - for R5
Mr.R.Sathish Kumar - for R6
ORDER
Seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate
action against the respondents 4 to 6 based on the petitioner’s
representation dated 02.06.2026, this Writ Petition is filed.
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is
working as a PET teacher in Seventh-day Adventist Matriculation Higher
Secondary School at Kallipatti Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni
District, since 2019. He belongs to Adidravidar Community and he was
appointed as Physical Education Teacher, on contract basis in SDA
Educational Institution at Usilampatti during 2013 and his appointment
was regularized in the year 2016. Under such circumstances, certain
teachers belonging from the upper caste were continuously
discriminating and humiliating the petitioner, for which he had lodged
several complaints with the management of the SDA Organization,
which was not attended to, pursuant to which he had sent a
representation dated 02/06/2026 to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking
appropriate action against respondents 4 to 6. In this regard, no action
has been taken, hence this petition.
3.The learned Government Advocate, submitted that enquiry is
pending on the petitioner’s representation.
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th and 5th respondents
submitted that the petitioner is not at all a person belonging to the
Adidravidar community. He had already converted himself to
Christianity and the learned counsel placed before me the certificate of
baptism dated 19.05.2015 where the petitioner had baptized himself to
Christianity at the SDA Church, Usilampatti. The learned counsel further
relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of
Chinthatda Anand Versus State of Andhra Pradesh1 submitted that a
converted Christian cannot give a complaint for atrocities under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard either sides and carefully perused the materials available
on record.
6. The Honble Apex Court has dealt with the similar case, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents in in
1 Criminal Appeal No.1580 of 2026 arising out of SLP Criminal No.9231 of 2025
4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
the case of Chinthatda Anand Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and the
relevant portion is extracted as follows:
37) The interpretation of the term “profess” as used in Clause 3 of the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 came up for consideration before
this Court in Punjabrao vs. D.P. Meshram7, wherein it was observed thus:
“13. What clause (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
contemplates is that for a person to be treated as one belonging to a
Scheduled Caste within the meaning of that Order, he must be one who
professes either Hindu or Sikh religion. The High Court, following its
earlier decision in Karwadi v. Shambharkar [AIR 1958 Bom 296] has said
that the meaning of the phrase “professes a religion” in the aforementioned
provision is “to enter publicly into a religions state” and that for this
purpose a mere declaration by a person that he has ceased to belong to a
particular religion and embraced another religion would not be sufficient.
The meanings of the word “profess” have been given thus in Webster’s New
World Dictionary:“to avow publicly; to make an open declaration of … to
declare one’s belief in : as, to profess Christ. To accept into a religious
order”. The meanings given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary are more or
less the same. It seems to us that the meaning “to declare one’s belief in : as
to profess Christ” is one which we have to bear in mind while construing the
aforesaid order because it is this which bears upon religious belief and
consequently also upon a change in religious belief. It would thus follow
that a declaration of one’s belief must necessarily mean a declaration in
such a way that it would be known to those whom it may interest. Therefore,
if a public declaration is made by a person that he has ceased to belong to
his old religion and has accepted another religion he will be taken as
professing the other religion. In the face of such an open declaration it
would be idle to enquire further as to whether the conversion to another
religion was efficacious. The word “profess” in the Presidential Order
appears to have been used in the sense of an open declaration or practice by
a person of the Hindu (or the Sikh) religion. Where, therefore, a person says,
on the contrary, that he has ceased to be a Hindu he cannot derive any
benefit from that Order.”5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
49) In a written reply to the Lok Sabha on 3rd August, 2021, the Minister of
State for Social Justice and Empowerment, Shri A. Narayanaswamy, addressed
this precise issue. The Press Information Bureau issued a press release9 titled
“Benefit of Centrally Sponsored Schemes to Converted Christians” recording
this parliamentary reply, which reads as follows:
“Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment Benefit of Centrally Sponsored
Schemes to Converted Christians by PIB Delhi No person who professes a
religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be
deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. The benefits of Centrally
Sponsored Schemes (CSS) meant for the welfare and development of
Scheduled Castes can not be extended to Converted Christians from
Scheduled Castes.
9 Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, “Benefit of Centrally
Sponsored Schemes to Converted Christians (PIB Press Release, 03rd
August, 2021) Government of Andhra Pradesh vide their letter dated
30.07.2021 has informed that they have issued orders vide GO.Ms. No. 341,
Social Welfare Dept., dated 13.08.1977 that non-statutory concessions
granted to the Scheduled Castes (Hindus) by the State Government be
extended to Scheduled Caste converts to Christian and to Buddhism.
Since this will not apply to the benefits under Centrally Sponsored Schemes or
any other statutory benefits, no further action is contemplated from the
Ministry. This information was given by The Minister of State for Social Justice
and Empowerment Shri A. Narayanaswamy in the Loksabha in a written reply
today
51) To further appreciate our discussion on the issue raised, it is necessary to
refer to some of the decisions of this Court which had addressed the same
questions. In C.M. Arumugam (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court had
observed as follows:
6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026“17. ….It is the orthodox Hindu society still dominated to a large extent,
particularly in rural areas, by medievalistic outlook and status-oriented
approach which attaches social and economic disabilities to a person
belonging to a scheduled caste and that is why certain favoured treatment is
given to him by the Constitution. Once such a person ceases to be a Hindu
and becomes a Christian, the social and economic disabilities arising
because of Hindu religion cease and hence it is no longer necessary to give
him protection and for this reason he is deemed not to belong to a scheduled
caste….” (emphasis supplied)
52) Thereafter, in Guntur Medical College vs. Y Mohan Rao10, a Constitution
Bench of this Court had discussed in detail the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950. The observations made by the Court are as follows:
“The President in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Article
341 has issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Paras (2)
and (3) of this Order are material and they read as follows:
“2. Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes, races or tribes or
parts of or groups within caste or tribes specified in Part I to XIII of the
Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the States to which these parts
respectively relate, be deemed to be scheduled castes so far as regards
members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in
those Parts of that Schedule.
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in para 2, no person who professes a
religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a
member of a Scheduled Caste.” The schedule to this order in Part I sets out
the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes or tribes which
shall in the different areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh be deemed to be
scheduled castes. One of the castes specified there is Madiga caste and that
caste must, therefore, be deemed to be a scheduled caste. But by reason of
clause (3), a person belonging to Madiga caste would not be deemed to be a
member of a scheduled caste unless he professes Hindu or Sikh religion at
the relevant time. It is not necessary that he should have been born a Hindu
or a Sikh. The only thing required is that he should at a material time be
professing Hindu or Sikh religion.” (emphasis supplied)
53) Following the dictum in Y Mohan Rao (supra), a Division Bench of this
Court in M. Chandra vs. M. Thangamuthu and Another11, observed as
follows:
7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026“28. Under these provisions, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order was
issued in 1950. It sets out the castes, races and tribes in each State of India
10 (1976) 3 SCC 411 11 (2010) 9 SCC 712 and provides under Para 2, that
a person belonging to any of the castes specified therein be deemed to be a
Scheduled Caste for the purpose of the Constitution.
Para 3 contains a proviso to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained
in Para 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, Sikh or
Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.
Reading Paras 2 and 3 of the Presidential Order would show that if a person
belongs to a caste which is notified in the Schedule to the Presidential Order
he/she would have the status of a Scheduled Caste, provided he/she professes
Hinduism or one of the other religions specified in Para 3 of the Order.
(emphasis supplied)
54) Before we further deal with this aspect, it would be apposite to refer to a
recent decision of this Court in C. Selvarani vs. The Special Secretary- cum-
District Collector and Others12, wherein a Division Bench was adjudicating
the claim of a person seeking reservation benefits, available to Scheduled
Castes, after conversion to Christianity. The relevant portion of the said
decision is as follows:
“38. At this juncture, we may observe that India is a secular country. Every
citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as
guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a different
religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and
spiritual thoughts. However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive
the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief on the other
religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of
reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat the social
ethos of the policy of reservation.
39. In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the
appellant professes Christianity and actively practices the faith by attending
church regularly. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for
Scheduled Caste community certificate for the purpose of employment. Such
a dual claim made by her is untenable and she cannot continue to identify
herself as a Hindu after baptism. Therefore, the conferment of Scheduled
Caste communal status to the appellant, who is a Christian by religion, but
claims to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing
reservation in employment, would 12 2024 INSC 9008/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026go against the very object of reservation and would amount to
fraud on the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) POSTULATES
55) Upon a cumulative reading of the aforesaid discussion and in the light
of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, the following principles emerge for
determining the entitlement of a person to be recognised as a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe:
a) The claimant must demonstrably belong to a caste or tribe which is
specifically notified and recognised under Clause 2 of the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950, and such status must be established by clear, cogent, and
unimpeachable evidence.
b) No person who professes a religion other than Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist
shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. This bar under
Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is categorical
and absolute. Conversion to any religion not specified in Clause 3 results in
immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste status from the moment of
conversion regardless of birth.
c) No statutory benefit, protection, reservation, or entitlement under the
Constitution or under any enactment of Parliament or State Legislature that
is predicated upon the membership of a Scheduled Caste can be claimed by
or extended to any person who, by operation of Clause 3 of the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, is not deemed to be a member of a
Scheduled Caste. This bar is absolute and admits no exception.
d) A person cannot simultaneously profess and practice a religion other
than the ones specified in Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950 and claim membership of a Scheduled Caste at the same time.
A person who professes and practices such religion for personal, social and
spiritual purposes cannot in law, assert membership of a Scheduled Caste
for the purpose of securing statutory benefits. The two positions are
mutually exclusive and contrary to the Constitutional scheme.
e) In cases where a person claims to have reconverted from a religion not
specified in Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
back to Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religion, the following three conditions
must be cumulatively and conclusively established:
9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026i. There must be a clear proof that the person originally belonged to a caste
notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
ii. There must be credible and unimpeachable evidence of bona fide
reconversion to the original religion, accompanied by complete and
unequivocal renunciation of the religion to which conversion had taken
place, total dissociation therefrom, and actual adoption and observance of
the customs, usages, practices, rituals, and religious obligations of the
original caste.
iii. There must be satisfactory and credible evidence establishing acceptance
and assimilation by the members of the original caste and the concerned
community. Mere self-proclamation is insufficient i.e., the community must
recognize and accept the person as one of their own.
All the above three conditions are mandatory and cumulative.
The burden of proving reconversion lies entirely on the claimant, to be
proven through unimpeachable evidence. Failure to establish even one
condition renders the claim unsustainable.
f) Where a person ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Caste by virtue of
Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the loss of
such status carries with it the automatic and immediate termination of all
eligibility for statutory benefits, protections, reservations, preferences and
entitlements that are predicated upon or flow from such membership.
g) With respect to Scheduled Tribes, this Court clarifies that unlike the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950 does not prescribe religion-based exclusion. The
determination of Scheduled Tribe status, therefore, cannot rest on
conversion alone, but must turn on whether the claimant continues to
possess and is recognised for the essential attributes of tribal identity,
including customary practices, social organisation, community life, and
acceptance by the concerned tribal community. Where conversion or
subsequent conduct results in a complete severance from the tribal way of
life and loss of community recognition, the foundational basis for Scheduled
Tribes status will stand eroded. Conversely, where such attributes
demonstrably subsist or are genuinely re-established and accepted by the
tribal community, the claim cannot be rejected mechanically. The10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026assessment in such cases is necessarily fact-specific and is left to the
competent authority to decide in accordance with Constitutional principles.
56) Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the
appellant was originally born into the Madiga community of Scheduled Caste.
It is equally undisputed that he subsequently embraced Christianity. The
submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that he continues to retain his
Scheduled Caste status by birth notwithstanding such conversion cannot be
accepted. When the postulates enunciated hereinabove are applied to the facts
at hand, it becomes manifest that for a person to be recognised as a member of
a Scheduled Caste, he must be professing the Hindu religion or such other
religions as are expressly recognised under the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950. Once the appellant converted to Christianity, the caste
status, which he earlier enjoyed as a member of the Madiga community, stood
eclipsed in the eyes of law.
57) In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant that at any stage, he
had reconverted from Christianity to his original religion or has been accepted
back into the fold of the Madiga community. On the contrary, the evidence on
record unmistakably establishes that the appellant continues to profess
Christianity and has been functioning as a Pastor for more than a decade,
conducting regular Sunday prayer meetings in different houses of the village. It
is also an admitted position that at the time of the alleged incident, the
appellant was conducting prayer meeting as a Pastor at the house of one Doma
Koti Reddy. These concurrent facts leave no room for doubt that the appellant
continues to remain a Christian on the date of the occurrence.
58) As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant placing
reliance on the caste certificate is concerned, we are of the view that mere
possession of the certificate will not be of any benefit to the appellant. The said
caste certificate is mandatorily required to be in consonance with the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In this regard, we place reliance
on the decision of this Court in K.P. Manu vs. Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificate13, wherein a Division Bench had laid
out three mandatory tests to be established by a person who claims to be a
beneficiary of a caste certificate:
“38. In our considered opinion, three things that need to be established by a
person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are : (i) there
must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been
recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; (ii) there11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and
earlier generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be evidence
establishing the acceptance by the community. Each aspect according to us
is very significant, and if one is not substantiated, the recognition would not
be possible.” (emphasis supplied)
59) From the above, it is clear that the administrative action of the State in
providing the caste certificate to the appellant cannot be in disharmony with
the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In the present case, we 13
(2015) 4 SCC 1 have no hesitation in holding that the appellant, having ceased
to be a member of the Madiga community upon his conversion to Christianity
and having failed to establish any subsequent reconversion, does not satisfy
the mandatory Constitutional requirement for claiming the status of Scheduled
Caste.
WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN QUASHING
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 7?
A. Offences alleged under the SC/ST Act
60) At the very outset, it must be unequivocally stated that the offences
registered under the SC/ST Act against respondent nos. 2 to 7 at the instance of
the appellant cannot be sustained. Having already held that the appellant
ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his conversion
to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The said statute is a special legislation enacted with the avowed object of
preventing atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and once the foundational requirement of caste status stands
extinguished, the statutory protection thereunder is no longer available.
61) Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that
the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste on his
conversion to Christianity. Accordingly, the appellant cannot be a person
aggrieved under the SC/ST Act.
B. Offences alleged under the IPC
62) Before we discuss on the alleged offences under Sections 341, 506
and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC against respondent nos. 2 to 7, it is
apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal14, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had deliberated on the list of
cases, wherein power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC should be exercised by
the High Court for quashing proceedings:
12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
14 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.” (emphasis supplied)
63) In light of the aforesaid legal parameters, we now proceed to examine the
allegations levelled against respondent nos. 2 to 7 in relation to the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC,
as alleged to have been committed against the appellant.
64) The case of the appellant, as emerging from the complaint, is that on the
date of the incident, after offering Sunday prayers and while returning to his
residence, he was allegedly wrongfully restrained at the entrance of a nearby
hamlet by respondent nos. 2 to 7, along with approximately twenty- five other
persons. It is further alleged that his mobile phone and vehicle keys were
forcibly taken away, that he was dragged and assaulted with hands and legs,
and that threats to his life were extended.
65) The charge-sheet filed in the matter cites sixteen witnesses, including the
appellant himself. Upon consideration of the material placed on record, the
High Court, by the impugned judgment, proceeded to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant against respondent nos. 2
to 7. In this context, we consider it appropriate to extract the relevant
reasoning of the High Court pertaining to the offences alleged under the IPC:
“38. In so far as the allegations of commission of offences under Sections
341, 506 and 323 read with 34 of IPC is concerned except for the statement
of LW.1 there is no other corroborating statement of any of the witnesses.
On the contrary LW.2 the wife of LW.1 would state that she came to know
about the alleged altercation and that by the time she went there LW.1 had
already started in a car with one Pothurlanka Srinivasa Rao-LW.4 in the car
belonging to LW.3 – Addepalii Anii Kumar. She also stated that Anil Kumar
and Pothurlanka Srinivasa Rao had dropped LW.1 at her house. Both LWs.3
and 4 state that there was an altercation and that about 30 people were
questioning LW.1 about his activities in the village and that LWs.3 and 4
intervened and pacified the situation and thereafter dropped LW.1. LWs.3
and 4 state that about 30 people have assembled and questioned LW.1;
however, LW.5 to LW.9 do not state so in their statement.
14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
41. Similarly, except for the listed witness Nos.1 and 3 no other witness speak
about the altercation involving 30 people. Even the charge sheet does not state
that 30 people had participated in the altercation. The only person
accompanying LW.1 at the time of the alleged altercation was LW.9, she does
not state about the alleged presence of the 30 people. All that she says in her
statement recorded on 27.01.2021 i.e., one day after the date of filing of
complaint. LW.9 stated that, she was the pillion rider of the two wheeler which
was driven by LW.1, when LW.1 and LW.9 reached cross roads of Kothapalem
Village some people came and stopped the two wheeler stating that they
wanted to talk with the Pastor and that LW.9 was dropped off at her house on
another bike. It is also stated by LW.9 she after reaching her home, she
overheard people shouting. Later she came to know that Reddy’s of
Kothapalem village have threatened LW.1 not to perform Sunday Prayers in
the village. With these allegations, the requirements under Sections
341, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC cannot be made out even after full fledged
trial. This Court is of the considered view that a false complaint is filed and no
purpose would be served if the petitioners are relegated to the trial Court and
to undergo the rigmarole of trial.”
66) The allegations of wrongful restraint, hurt and criminal intimidation rest
solely on the statement of the appellant, with no independent witness
attributing any specific overt act to respondent nos. 2 to 7. LW-2 was
admittedly not present at the scene, while LW-3 and LW-4, though referring to
an altercation, stated that the situation was pacified and the appellant was
escorted away. Their version does not support any allegation of restraint,
assault or threat. The claim regarding the presence of a large unlawful
assembly is unsupported by the chargesheet or other witnesses, thereby
weakening the case of a concerted act under Section 34 of the IPC. LW-9, who
accompanied the appellant, also does not allege any assault, restraint or
intimidation; her subsequent statements are hearsay in nature. Moreover,
absence of consistent ocular testimony identifying the assailants or manner of
occurrence, does not advance the prosecution’s case.
67) Thus, we are of the view that the basic foundation in respect of allegations
of wrongful restraint, causing hurt and criminal intimidation are not present in
the material collected during investigation.
68) In Bhajan Lal (supra) and recently in Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited vs. State of Maharashtra15, this Court has clearly held that where the
uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected during investigation do
not disclose the commission of any offence, continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
15/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
69) We are of the view that the High Court, upon a careful and correct
appreciation of the material on record, arrived at the conclusion that the
allegations under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC
are not borne out even if the prosecution’s case is taken at its face value. 15
(2021) 19 SCC 401 (Para 33)
7. Fully fortified by the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the
categorical view that the converted Christian cannot give a complaint for
action warranting atrocities under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
8. At this point, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the
Baptism Certification issued by the fourth respondent and the community
certificate of the petitioner issued by the Thasildar, Usilampatti.
9. In this regard, the third respondent police is directed to produce
the Father, SDA Church, Usilampatti, with complete records pertaining
to the baptism of one Ravi Kumar, dated 19.05.2015.
10. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent also drew my
attention to a letter given by the petitioner himself, acknowledging the
16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
factum of having converted to Christianity in his own handwriting dated
21-9-2023.
11. The 5th respondent is directed to produce the letter dated
21/9/2023 given by the petitioner in this regard, with all the records
pertaining to his appointment.
12. Post the matter on 09.07.2026.
07-07-2026
Note : Issue order copy on 08.07.2026
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Periyakulam Sub Division, Theni District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police Station, Theni District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
pnn
WP Crl.(MD) NO. 3272 of 2026
07-07-2026
18/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
