IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.10553 of 2008
1. GOLDAN SINGH @ GOLTAN SINGH
2. AIYA SINGH
BOTH SONS OF RAM BIHARI SINGH, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE
KORIYAWAN, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA.
... ... PETITIONERS.
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. SAKALDEO PRASAD S/O LATE PRAGASH DAS, OF VILLAGE
KORIYAWAN, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA
... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
2. 28.6.2010. Heard Mr. Kaushal Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioners, while invoking
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order
dated 15.2.2007 passed by Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi in Masaurhi
P.S. Case No.19 of 2006, Tr. No.1625 of 2007.
By the said order, learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of
the offence under Section 3(x) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities)Act besides
Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal
2
Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
has confined on the petition to challenge the
order in respect of cognizance under Section
3(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. It was
submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that though F.I.R. was registered
under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act
and other sections of the Indian Penal Code,
the police, after investigation, submitted
final form only in respect of the offence
under Indian Penal Code. It was further
argued that during the entire investigation,
nothing was collected suggesting commission
of offence under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and
S.T. Act. It was further submitted that since
from very beginning, police was satisfied
that no offence under the provisions of S.C.
and S.T. Act was made out, the case was not
investigated by the officer duly competent
under the rules of S.C. and S.T. Rules.
However, the learned Magistrate, contrary to
the record, had taken cognizance of the
offence even under Section 3(x) of the S.C.
and S.T. Act. The Police Officer, who had
conducted investigation in the present case,
3
was not authorized to conduct investigation
as per Rule-7 of the S.C. and S.T. Rules,
1995. Accordingly, learned counsel for the
petitioners has prayed for quashing of order
of cognizance to the extent of cognizance
taken under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and S.T.
Act.
Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing
the prayer of the petitioners, submits that
said provision has already been amended and
now even Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is
competent to conduct investigation of
offences committed under the provisions of
S.C. and S.T. Act. It was further submitted
that in this case, cognizance order was
passed long back on 15th February, 2007 and
as such it would not be appropriate to
interfere with the order of cognizance at
this stage. Accordingly, learned State
counsel has prayed for rejection of the
present petition.
Besides hearing learned counsel for
the parties, I have perused the impugned
order as well as the F.I.R. So far the point
raised by the learned counsel for the
4
petitioners that the case was not
investigated by a competent authority, I am
of the view that after the order of
cognizance, such point is not at all
available. Moreover, during hearing, it was
submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that case has already been
committed to the court of Sessions. However,
charges have not been framed till date.
Keeping in view the fact that order
of cognizance was passed long back in the
year 2007, the court is not inclined to
interfere with the order of cognizance.
However, since learned counsel for the
petitioners has vehemently argued that during
the entire investigation, nothing was
collected indicating commission of offence
under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. Act, it
would be appropriate to grant liberty to the
petitioners to raise all those points at the
stage of charge. If such plea is taken at the
time of charge, it is expected that the
learned trial court will examine the same on
the basis of materials available in the case
diary and he will pass a reasoned order on
the petition. It is true that at the time of
5
rejection of discharge petition as per the
provisions contained in either Sections 227,
239 or 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
there is no requirement to assign reason but
in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is
required that learned trial Judge will pass a
reasoned order.
With above observation and direction,
the petition stands rejected.
( Rakesh Kumar,J.)
N.H./