Caste Passions And Bigotry Must Be Uprooted: Madras High Court Dismisses Same-Day NBW Recall Plea, Flags Selective Non-Arrest Of Suspended Sub-Inspector Accused In SC/ST Act Honour Killing Case
Safiya Malik
The Madras High Court at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri dismissed a plea by the third accused seeking a direction that her application to recall a non-bailable warrant be decided on the day she surrenders. The case concerns allegations of honour killing of a Scheduled Caste man, a software professional from Tirunelveli, following an inter-caste relationship; the victim’s mother is complainant. The Court said the accused may surrender before the trial court and seek relief. The judge noted that caste bigotry must be eliminated to realise Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s vision and that victim and witness protections under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act require coordinated action so that even one citizen’s life and liberty is not sacrificed to caste.
The case arose from a criminal original petition filed seeking a direction to the Sessions Court to consider, on the same day of surrender, an application for recall of a non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner, who was arrayed as an accused in a sessions case. The prosecution originated from a criminal case registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended.
The allegations pertained to the killing of a young man belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, projected as an honour killing arising out of an inter-caste relationship. The prosecution alleged conspiracy and facilitation by family members, including the petitioner, who was a police officer and the mother of one of the co-accused.
After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court, which issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that she was not arrested during investigation, had no overt act attributed to her, and that the warrant was issued without first issuing summons. The State and the de facto complainant opposed the petition on grounds of maintainability, availability of an alternative remedy, and the gravity of the allegations.
The Court observed that “The relief sought, though couched as a “direction”, in substance asks this Court to intervene in relation to a judicial act of issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and to regulate the manner and time within which the learned Trial Court must deal with the petitioner’s recall application.” The Court stated that “A warrant is not an administrative step, but it is a judicial process issued by a Court in seisin of a sessions case.” It recorded that “The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is undoubtedly wide, but it is equally settled that it is not meant to create a parallel appellate/supervisory mechanism for every procedural grievance, particularly when the Code provides an efficacious remedy.”
On the remedy available, the Court stated: “In the present case, the petitioner has a direct and effective remedy: surrender/appear before the learned Trial Court and file an application for recall/cancellation of warrant.” It also recorded that “The plea that the petitioner apprehends an adverse outcome before the learned Trial Court cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory route and seek a pre-structured direction from this Court, especially in a case involving grave accusations including offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.”
On the victims’ and witnesses’ position under the special statute, the Court observed: “It would be a dereliction of duty on the part of this Court if it does not draw the attention of the prosecution and the investigating agency to the fact that Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which falls under Chapter IV-A titled “Rights of Victims and Witnesses”, has been introduced by the lawmakers with the avowed object of making necessary arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of intimidation, coercion, inducement, violence, or threats of violence, and to ensure the active participation of the dependents/legal heirs of the victim as stakeholders in the criminal justice delivery system.”
The Court also stated: “Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who ensured equality before law and equal protection of laws.” It recorded that “The Investigating Agency and the Judiciary must work in seamless coordination to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single Indian citizen is never sacrificed at the altar of caste.”
On investigative discretion and witness protection, the Court observed: “The prosecution has not placed before this Court any material to indicate the rationale for adopting different approaches with respect to the arrest of the accused persons, particularly when A2 and A3 are similarly placed in terms of their alleged role in the occurrence and their institutional background.” It recorded that “such discretion is expected to be exercised on objective considerations and applied uniformly, especially in cases involving grave offences.” It also stated: “In cases of this nature, where witnesses are closely connected to the parties involved, courts are required to remain mindful of the statutory obligation to ensure that witnesses are insulated from any form of influence, whether direct or indirect.”
The Court also stated: “Considering the brutality of the offence, the subsequent acts alleged against the accused collectively, and the undeniable possibility of institutional influence of A1 and A2, this Court apprehends that the decision not to arrest A3 carries a tangible risk of witness intimidation or influence, thereby striking at the fairness of the investigative process.” It recorded: “Acceding to such a request would, in the considered view of this Court, frustrate the object and spirit of Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which is designed to safeguard victims and witnesses from coercion and undue influence.”
Finally, the Court recorded its supervisory observations on investigation: “This Court is constrained to observe that selective exercise of investigative discretion, especially where the accused occupy positions within the law-enforcement machinery, has the potential to erode public confidence in the fairness of criminal investigation.” It stated that such safeguards require investigations to be conducted “ensuring that victims are not reduced to mere spectators in the justice delivery process.”
The Court concluded that “this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to appear or surrender before the learned II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. The Trial Court shall deal with such application uninfluenced by any observations made herein.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Subash Babu, Senior Counsel, M/s. Subash Law Office
For the Respondents: Mr. Thanga Aravindh B., Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr. B. Mohan, for Mr. C.M. Arumugam
Case Title: Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20545 of 2025
Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri
