Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1388 (PAT)

Goldan Singh @ Goltan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-06-28

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Kaushal Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 15.2.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi in Masaurhi P.S.Case No. 19 of 2006, Tr. No. 1625 of 2007. By the said order, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Act besides Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined on the petition to challenge the order in respect of cognizance under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though F.I.R. was registered under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and ST. Act and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, the police, after investigation, submitted final form only in respect of the offence under Indian Penal Code. It was further argued that during the entire investigation, nothing was collected suggesting commission of offence under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. It was further submitted that since from very beginning, police was satisfied that no offence under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. Act was made out, the case was not investigated by the officer duly competent under the rules of S.C. and ST. Rules. However, the learned Magistrate, contrary to the record, had taken cognizance of the offence even under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. The Police Officer, who had conducted investigation in the present case, was not authorized to conduct investigation as per Rule-7 of the S.C. and S.T. Rules, 1995. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance to the extent of cognizance taken under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. 4. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the prayer of the petitioners, submits that said provision has already been amended and now even Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is competent to conduct investigation of offences committed under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. Act. 4. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the prayer of the petitioners, submits that said provision has already been amended and now even Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is competent to conduct investigation of offences committed under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. Act. It was further submitted that in this case, cognizance order was passed long back on 15th February, 2007 and as such it would not be appropriate to interfere with the order of cognizance at this stage. Accordingly, learned State counsel has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order as well as the F.I.R. So far the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was not investigated by a competent authority, I am of the view that after the order of cognizance, such point is not at all available. Moreover, during hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that case has already been committed to the court of Sessions. However, charges have not been framed till date. 6. Keeping in view the fact that order of cognizance was passed long back in the year 2007, the court is not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance. However, since learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that during the entire investigation, nothing was collected indicating commission of offence under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. Act, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to raise all those points at the stage of charge. If such plea is taken at the time of charge, it is expected that the learned trial court will examine the same on the basis of materials available in the case diary and he will pass a reasoned order on the petition. It is true that at the time of rejection of discharge petition as per the provisions contained in either Sections 227, 239 or 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no requirement to assign reason but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is required that learned trial Judge will pass a reasoned order. 7. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected.