Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 57 (PAT)

Awanish Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-09

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Murari Narain Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Through this application the petitioner seeks the quashing of order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Shastrinagar (Gardanibagh) RS. Case No. 581 of 2006 whereby cognizance has been taken under the provisions of the Penal Code as also the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the materials available on record no offence appears to have been made out against the petitioner in respect of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that initially the F.I.R. was registered for the offences under the Penal Code as also Arms Act and it was only in course of investigation that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was brought into the picture and was added to the F.I.R. under the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The learned counsel sought to point out that the Section provides that the complainant must state those words which are sufficient for making out a prima facie case under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and since the actual words have not been mentioned, hence taking of cognizance under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is bad in law and is required to be quashed. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to the case of Hari Shankar Shah vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 579 where for identical matters the cognizance in respect of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were quashed. 4. Since cognizance has already been taken presumably in view of the fact that these Sections were incorporated in Chargesheet and the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind before taking cognizance, it would only be appropriate that the cognizance taken in respect of Sections 3(1-x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be quashed. 5. Since cognizance has already been taken presumably in view of the fact that these Sections were incorporated in Chargesheet and the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind before taking cognizance, it would only be appropriate that the cognizance taken in respect of Sections 3(1-x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the cognizance in respect of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby quashed but so far as the cognizance in respect of the offences under the Penal Code and Arms Act is concerned, that shall continues. 6. In the result, this application is allowed in part.