The Madras High Court Bench here on Wednesday quashed the summons issued by a Judicial Magistrate here to former Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University Kalyani Mathivanan and 10 Syndicate members, following a private complaint lodged by a Dalit employee to prosecute them under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Allowing a joint petition filed by the former V-C and others to quash the summons and the private complaint, Justice M.M. Sundresh held that the magistrate had issued the summons in a mechanical fashion without applying his judicial mind and ascertaining whether the complainant, M. Parthasarathi, had made out a prima facie case.
The judge said that magistrates should not act as “mere spectators or post boxes” and issue summons in every other private complaint since issuance of summon to a person was a serious matter. The judicial officers were duty bound to examine the veracity of a complaint before exercising their powers to initiate process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He said that the complainant in the present case had joined the university as a sweeper/watchman about a decade ago and gradually got promoted to the post of Assistant. The Syndicate had lodged a criminal complaint against him on October 3, 2013 on a charge of pasting posters levelling false allegations against the university management.
A day later, he was transferred to a constituent college of the university at Aruppukottai in Virudhunagar district and asked to vacate the residential quarters allotted to him on the university campus. On October 14, 2013, he lodged a complaint with the then Superintendent of Police accusing Ms. Mathivanan of having insulted him in public on September 13.
Subsequently, on January 6, 2014, he had lodged a private complaint “improving the allegations” made in his police complaint and included the 10 Syndicate members apart from the Aruppukottai college principal as accused. But, no independent witness was examined by the complainant before the magistrate, the judge remarked.
“The magistrate had issued the summons without applying his judicial mind and ascertaining whether the complainant had made out a prima facie case”
