IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 441 of 2012 Shibu Turi ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pramod Kumar Mishra 3. Manoj Kumar Mishra .…. … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. -------- 6/ 31.08.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2011, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.2.2011 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar No.I, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribag, in C. Case No. 16 of 2011 (Trial No. 1183 of 2011) has been dismissed.
3. By order dated 24.5.2011 passed in C. Case No. 16 of 2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate had found prima facie offence under Section 323, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code only, against the accused opposite parties Nos.2 and 3, and had not found any prima facie offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’), whereby, the complainant-petitioner was aggrieved and he had filed the revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.9.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2011.
4. The impugned order shows that in the complaint, there was allegation against opposite parties Nos.2 and 3, also of abusing the complainant in the name of his caste, but no prima facie offence was found against the accused persons by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The revision was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that such abuses were not made in public view, as also on the ground of some discrepancies in the statements of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant in the enquiry stage and the learned Sessions Judge has held that the learned Magistrate has rightly not found any prima facie offence against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. -2- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, there is specific allegation in the complaint petition making out the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the witnesses have also stated about the same, but both the Courts below have not appreciated the matter in its right perspective and the cognizance was not taken for the offence under the said Act, which is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has pointed out that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
7. The complaint petition has been brought on record, in which, it is stated that the complainant went to the police station and gave the information about the occurrence, which was written by the Officer In-charge. However, no police case was instituted and accordingly, the complaint petition was filed. It is apparent from perusal of the complaint petition that the complainant had not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 5(3) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which reads as follows:-
“5. Information to Police Officer in-charge of a Police Station.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of an offence under the Act, if given orally to an officer inchare of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the persons giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be maintained by that police station. (2) A copy of the information as so recorded under sub-rule(1) above shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-rule (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who after investigation either by himself or by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall make an order in writing to the officer in-charge of the concerned police station to enter the substance of that information to be entered in the book to be maintained by that police station.”
8. A bare perusal of Rule 5(3) of the aforesaid Rules, clearly shows that a person aggrieved by the refusal of the Officer In-charge of a police station to register the case may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who after investigation either by himself or by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall -3- make an order in writing to the officer in-charge of the concerned police station to register the case. It is apparent from the complaint petition that without following this procedure laid down in the statutory Rules, the complainant had filed the complaint in the Court below, also alleging the offence committed by the accused persons, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. There is also specific provision for investigation of the case, under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, which clearly prescribes that the offences under this Act shall be investigated by a police officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
9. In view of the fact that the petitioner had filed the complaint petition in the Court below without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 5(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the Court below had rightly not found any prima facie offence against the accused- opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 and the revision filed against that order was rightly rejected by the revisional Court below, though on different grounds.
10. In the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality and / or regularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner for taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused persons, has been rejected.
11. There is no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.