JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code with the prayer that the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh be directed not to take cognizance against the accused petitioner and not to arrest and send him to judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 220/92 dated November 2, 1992 Police Station. Sujangarh (Churu) so far as the offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') are concerned. 2. The petitioner's case is that on the complaint of Shri Kalu Ram Bankar (Scheduled Caste), Tehsildar, Sujangarh dated November 2, 1992, said FIR under Sections 353. 332 and 504, Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was registered against him. He filed D B. Civil Writ Petition No, 6017/92 challenging the provisions of the Act and also for issuing an order or direction to the non-petitioner not to arrest him. On his stay application the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to direct that in the mean while the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the said FIR so far as the offences punishable under the Act are concerned. In similar Writ Petition No. 4701/92 Gidharam v. Union of India and others , similar slay order was passed in connection with FIR No. 87/92 Police Station Chhapar (Churu) and despite it the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(11) of the Act against him observing that there is no stay of the High Court for taking cognizance, despite his objection, rejected his bail application and sent him to judicial custody, after the challan was filed by the police. The petitioner apprehends that on filing of the challan by the police, cognizance would also be taken against him under the Act by Shri Chandra Kumar Songara, Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate. Sujangarh, his bail application would be rejected and he would be sent to judicial custody. The complainant Shri Kalu Ram Tehsildar, Sujangarh is a Scheduled Caste Officer and is a friend of Shri Chandra Kumar Songara, Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh. 3. Sujangarh, his bail application would be rejected and he would be sent to judicial custody. The complainant Shri Kalu Ram Tehsildar, Sujangarh is a Scheduled Caste Officer and is a friend of Shri Chandra Kumar Songara, Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the stay order passed on November 11, 1992 in the said D.B. Civil Writ Petition for not arresting the petitioner the learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate may reject the bail application of the accused petitioner and send him to judicial custody as wits Core by him in the case of Gidharam and the very purpose of his filing said writ petition would be frustrated. 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no question of filing challan urder the Act as the investigating officer has been given liberty to investigate into the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and not under tie Act and the challan could be filed only after investigate on and rot prior to it. 5. On November 11, 1992, the following stay order was passed in the petitioner's D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6017/92:- "Meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR 220/92 dated 2-11-92 of Police Station, Sujangarh, District Churu only so far as the offences punishable under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are concerned. The investigating Officer shall be at liberty to investigate into the other offences." By order dated November 25, 1992 passed in Criminal case No. 901/92 State v. Gidharam , the learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh took cognizance under Sections 324, 323, Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(11) of the At observing tat there is no stay order against him for taking cognizance. This order further shows that the bail application was rejected and the accused Gidharam was seat to judicial custody. The above quoted stay order passed in favour of the petitioner Mangal Gland clearly recites that meanwhile he shall not be atrested in connection with the said FIR No. 220/92 and the investigating officer shall be at liberty to investigate into other offences. He has not been given liberty to investigate into any offence punishable under the Act. A challan can be filed only after necessary investigation. He has not been given liberty to investigate into any offence punishable under the Act. A challan can be filed only after necessary investigation. Even if challan is filed against the accused petitioner for an offence punishable under the Act, the petitioner cannot be arrested in view of the above quoted stay order. The stay order is not confined to the petitioner's arrest by the police only. There is a complete ban for his arrest by any agency till this stay order remains in force. The Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh cannot also arrest him and send to judicial custody otherwise he would be commuting the contempt of this Court.Accordingly, the petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is allowed. The Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh will not arrest the petitioner Mangal Chand in the Criminal case arising out of FIR No. 220/92 dated November 2, of the Police Station. Sajangarh so far as offences punishable under the Act are concerned till the stay order dated November 11, 1992 passed in the petitioner's Writ Petition No. 6017/92 remains in force.Petition allowed. *******