Bhanwar Singh vs State of Raj. and Another

A.K. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

This petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11th June, 1998 passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma, RJS Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Landnu, in complaint case No. 5/98 Narain Ram v. Bhanwar Singh By the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate has not discussed the evidence nor given any cogent reason for coming to the conclusion that there were grounds for taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

It appears that Narain Ram lodged a First Information Report No. 212 on 22nd August, 1996 at Police Station Landnu. In the First Information Report, it was alleged by Narain Ram that on the previous day at about 10-11 AM he was going towards the bus stand. In ''guwad'' he was stopped by Bhanwar Singh and his son Kalu Singh, who abused him and used the words "dhedh" and "neech" for him. It was also alleged in the First Information Report that when the complainant Narain Ram asked Bhanwar Singh and Kalu Singh as to why they were abusing him they caught hold of his collar and inflicted 3-4 blows with fists. He fell down on the ground and was given beating by both and was saved by Shri Hanumana Ram and Ramu Babri. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Narain Ram, Police, registered a case under Sections 341, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

During the investigation, Police examined number of persons including Narain Ram, Hanumana Ram, Ramu Ram, Shamshuddin, Nandlal, Bhilaram, Ajeet Singh, Ghud Singh, Purna Ram, Jasa Ram and Kisna Ram. Medical examination of the complainant was also got done. On conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not made out but the offences under Sections 341 and 323/34 IPC were made out. Consequently, a charge sheet u/s 173 of the Cr. PC was submitted in respect of offences under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC.

It appears that not being satisfied with the charge sheet filed by the Police, the complainant submitted a complaint in writing on 6.4.1998 in the court of learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Landnu. In the complaint, it was alleged that besides offences under Sections 323/34 and 341 IPC, offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also made out. On submission of the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 6.4.1998 directed the complaint to be put up with the office report. On 11.6.1998, learned Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned Judicial Magistrate further directed that the complaint be annexed with the criminal case instituted on the basis of the police report. This direction was given u/s 210 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate has referred to statements of Narain Ram, Hanumana Ram and Ramu Ram, who were examined under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC but not even a single word has been written in the impugned order to indicate what was the stated by the witnesses.

Learned Judicial Magistrate also omitted to mention the facts, which in his opinion constitute the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned Judicial Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of the offence u/s 190 CrPC. The conditions necessary for taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or any other offence, are that the complaint or police report or information placed before him should have contained facts constituting the offence. Learned Judicial Magistrate had before him the Police report, submitted by the officer in-charge of the Police Station, Landnu, after conducting investigation, in the case registered on the basis of first information report filed by Narain Ram. In the Police report it was stated that the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not made out. As such there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to have taken cognizance of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by Police u/s 173 of the CrPC; unless the learned Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that the factsprima/acte established by the evidence on record constitute such an offence. Learned Judicial Magistrate also had before him a complaint filed by Narain Ram and-------Learned Judicial Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act if the facts prima facie, established by the evidence recorded by him constitute an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned Judicial Magistrate has not mentioned those facts which in his opinion constitute the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The impugned order does not appear to have been passed after applying the mind in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 190 and Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held in several cases of this Court and decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court that issuing process against an accused is a serious matter and judicial mind be applied by the Magistrate before issuing process u/s 204 of Cr PC, to find out if there are sufficient grounds for issuing in the case. Unless the Magistrate is satisfied, after judicial application of mind to the material placed before him, that the facts prima facie established before him constitute an offence of which he can take cognizance in accordance with law, he cannot be said to be justified in issuing process against any person. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without considering whether the facts primafacie established before him by the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC constitute an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and therefore, it is a fit case in which inherent powers of this Court should be invoked for setting aside the impugned order and giving a direction to the learned, Judicial Magistrate to consider the matter afresh, after hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused person for offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, this petition is allowed.'' The impugned order dated 11.6.1998 passed in Complaint case No. 5/1998 Narain Ram v. Bhanwar Singh is hereby quashed and set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Landnu is hereby directed to re-consider the question of issuing a process against accused person for offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, after hearing the counsel for the complainant.