Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 159 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1999-02-09

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH

body1999
Honble SINGH, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This petition under Sec. 482, CrPC 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 vs. Bhanwar Singh. By the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (3). 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 under Sec.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. (4). 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 10-11AM he was going to- wards 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 Section 341, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (5). 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 Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not made out but the offences under Secs. 341 and 323/34 IPC were made out. Consequently, a charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC was submitted in respect of offences under Secs. On conducting the investigation, the Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not made out but the offences under Secs. 341 and 323/34 IPC were made out. Consequently, a charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC was submitted in respect of offences under Secs. 341, 323/34 IPC. (6). 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 under Sec. 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 under Sec. 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 under Sec.210 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (7). In the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate has referred to state- ments 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 stated by the witnesses. (8). Learned Judicial Magistrate also omitted to mention the facts, which in his opinion constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (9). Learned Judicial Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of the offence under Sec.190 CrPC. The conditions necessary for taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 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 incharge of the Police Station Landnu, after conducting investigation, in the case registered on the basis of first information report filed by Narain Ram. Learned Judicial Magistrate had before him the Police report, submitted by the officer incharge 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 under Sec.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 under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by Police under Section 173 of the CrP.C.; unless the learned Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts prima facie established by the evidence on record constitute such an offence. Learned Judicial Magistrate also had before him a complaint filed by Narain Ram and Narain Ram in the statement submitted in his witness who was examined under Section 200 and 202 CrPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if the fracts prima facie established by the evidence recorded by him constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (10). Learned Judicial Magistrate has not mentioned those facts which in his opinion constitute the offence under Section 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 Sec.190 and Sec.204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held in several cases of this Court and decisions of Honble Supreme Court that issuing process against an accused is a serious matter and judicial mind must be applied by the Magistrate before issuing process under Section 204 of CrPC, to find out if there are sufficient grounds for issuing process 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. 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 prima facie established before him by the evidence recorded under sections 200 and 202 CrPC constitute an offence under Section 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 impug- ned 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 under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (11). For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, this petition is allowed, The impu- gned order dated 11.6.1998 passed in Complaint case No.5/98 Narain Ram vs. 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 under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, after hearing the counsel for the complainant.