ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 22nd March, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby respondents No. 2-10 herein, who were charge-sheeted by the police for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(x), (xi) & (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989 and Sections 323/341/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), were discharged in respect of the offence under the Act of 1989 while in respect of the IPC offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons the case was remanded back to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for consideration since all those offences were triable by the Court of a Magistrate. 2. The relevant portions from the impugned order where the allegations which were leveled against the respondents 2-10 in the FIR and then in the charge-sheet submitted in Court have been noticed as well as the observations of the learned trial Judge are being re-produced below:- The case of the prosecution is that on 3-5-2008 all the above accused persons had obstructed, molested and used objectionable caste related remarks against the complainant Ms. Kanaklata aged about 30 years, her sister Manorama aged 29 years and brother Chander Bhusan aged 27 years who, were the tenants under the accused persons. It is further alleged that the accused persons had caused simple injuries to the complainant Kanaklata who are belonging to Scheduled Caste category (Chammar). As per the allegations of the complainant they have been the tenant under the accused persons and had been regularly making payment of monthly rent charges and previously there was no dispute but of-late the landlord stopped their water and when the complainant objected to the same he used caste based remarks. The remarks so attributed to the accused persons are as under:- 1. Sale Chamaroon tum logon ne humse apni jaati chipiai aur hamara ghar aur pani aur hume chhu-chhu kar apavitra aur bhrast karte rahe ho. 2. Haramzadoon dogule ki auloodon ya to hamara ghar khali karo varna hum thymhare saath vo karenge ki tumhare ghar vale kisi ko muh dikhane ke layak to rahenge hi nahin tumhari bootiyan bhi nahin milengi. 3. Kutiya chamari teri himmat kaise hui hamara nal chhu kar hamara dharma bhrast karne ki. 2. Haramzadoon dogule ki auloodon ya to hamara ghar khali karo varna hum thymhare saath vo karenge ki tumhare ghar vale kisi ko muh dikhane ke layak to rahenge hi nahin tumhari bootiyan bhi nahin milengi. 3. Kutiya chamari teri himmat kaise hui hamara nal chhu kar hamara dharma bhrast karne ki. Doogli ke aullaudon ya to aaj apna samaan uthakar yahan se niklo varna aaj ki raat hum apne logon ko bula kar tumhara samuhik balatkar karenge aur tum teeno bhai behnoon ki boti-boti katkar aise jaghe thikane lagayenge ki tumhara pura khandaan dhundhta reh jayega. Abhi tum harmari taakat ko nahin jaanti. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to DD No. 22-A which is the first complaint given by the complainant Ms. Kanaklata on which the signatures made by her at the bottom have been torn. Ld. Counsel submits that these signatures have been deliberately torn by the complainant and the specific allegations under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been mala fidely inserted thereafter as an after thought on legal advise. The investigating Officer was directed to furnish his explanation with regard to the DD No. 22-A where the signatures of the complaint was torn. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction ASI Roshan Lal has furnished his clarification and explanation in writing. In his explanation ASI Roshan Lal has submitted that on 4-5-2008 the at about 11:00 am the complainant came to the police station at Mukherjee Nagar and made her statement before him and in her statement she had not leveled any allegation regarding Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused persons and after that the complainant was talking to Media Persons and one Mr. Ashok Bharti on telephone and thereafter she suddenly tore the paper where the complainant had signed. Ashok Bharti on telephone and thereafter she suddenly tore the paper where the complainant had signed. The torn copy of the first statement/complaint made by the complainant already exists with the court file as DD No. 22-A. It is further stated by ASI Roshan Lal that after the said incident, the complainant had forced the Investigating Officer and told him that she wanted to give her statement in her own handwriting which he permitted but suddenly she went outside the police station and after 10-15 minutes she came back with the SHO and media persons and compelled the investigating officer to write down her statement in his handwriting. It is in this background that her statement was recorded by the investigating officer in his own handwriting in the presence of the SHO/Media persons. In her subsequent statement on the basis of which the present FIR was registered, the complainant Ms. Kanaklata mentioned that 2-4 days prior to the incident their water had been stopped and when they went to inquire from the landlord. Om Prakash Grover, he and his wife made objectionable caste related remarks to them: Sale chamaroon tum logoon ne humse apni jaati chipai our hamara ghar aut pani aur hume chhu-chhu kar apavitar aur bhrast karte rahe ho. Thereafter the complainant and her family went to the portion at top floor but the landlord Om Prakash Grover and his wife came to them stating that Haramzadon dogule ki auloodon ya to hamara ghar khali karo varna hum thymhare saath vo karenge ki tumhare ghar vale kisi ko muh dikhane ke layak to rahenge hi nahin unhe tumhari bootiyan bi nahin milengi on 3-5-2008 at about 9-10 pm when the complainant allegedly had gone to the ground floor to take the water for cooking dinner and when she opened the tap, the landlord Om Prakash Grover came out of his house and caught hold of her hair and inflicted slaps on her and pushed her on the floor. On hearing the noise, his two sons namely Raj Kumar and Sunil Kumar and their wives Ritu Grover and Reetika Grover and the wife of Om Prakash came out and started beating her and uttered Kutiya chamari teri himmat kaise hui hamara nal chhu kar hamara dharma bhrasth karne ki. On hearing the noise, his two sons namely Raj Kumar and Sunil Kumar and their wives Ritu Grover and Reetika Grover and the wife of Om Prakash came out and started beating her and uttered Kutiya chamari teri himmat kaise hui hamara nal chhu kar hamara dharma bhrasth karne ki. Doogli ke aulaandon ya to aaj apna samaan uthakar yahan se niklo varna aaj ki raath hum apne logon ko bula kar tumhara samuhik balatkar karenge aur tum teeno bhai behnon ki boti-boti katkar aise jaghe thikane lagayenge ki tumhara pura khandaan dhundhta reh jayega. Abi tum hamari taakat ko nahin jaante. The complainant has also alleged that the brother of the complainant Chander Bhushan intervened and also called the younger brother Vijay Bahadur and his friend Geeta Rani but before they could enter; the brother and daughter in law of the landlord, who are residing in the neighbourhood came at the spot and also started beating her. This Court is now required to examine this issue in the light of the aforesaid facts. I have gone through the charge-sheet, documents placed on record by the prosecution, statement of the various witnesses recorded by the investigating officer and further I have also examined the case diaries/Jimnies particularly the case diary dated 4-5-2008. The Jimnies further shows that it was only after the complainant called the media persons and after taking legal advise from Ashok Bharti, Advocate, that she started making allegations for bringing the case under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, that the initial investigating officer ASI Roshan Lal was compelled and coerced to record the further statement of the complainant, after she tore off her signatures from the initial complaint made by her (DD No. 22A) on the basis of which the present FIR was registered and the accused persons have been charge-sheeted. From what has been noticed above, I find that the present case is a glaring example of abuse of a Special Legislation with stringent provisions which has been enacted to ameliorate the lot of the hitherto, under-privileged, deprived and marginalised section of the society. From what has been noticed above, I find that the present case is a glaring example of abuse of a Special Legislation with stringent provisions which has been enacted to ameliorate the lot of the hitherto, under-privileged, deprived and marginalised section of the society. Unfortunately one comes across growing instances of cases where the provisions of this Act have not so much been invoked for the betterment of those to whom it seeks to protect, than by those who want to settle personal scores by giving to an otherwise ordinary dispute, the colour of an alleged atrocity under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This Court in a case like present will not remain a mute spectator to any abuse of the process of law. This Court also will not be a privy to any exploitative situation of misuse and of this Act whose abuse has otherwise raised serious concerns all over the country. Recently the State Government in Uttar Pradesh has been compelled to take up the issue in the State Assembly for relaxing the stringent provisions of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to check its abuse without compromising the security of the marginalised sections of the society. Law cannot be the absolute property of a few and this Court can only hope and appeal that the provisions this special legislations are not abused by a few so as to ensure that its benefit is actually reach the exploited sections. What has also cause some measure of concern to this Court is the manner in which the complainant has tried to use the media and the Media has allowed itself to be used. The presence of Media at the police station was not incidental or voluntarily but was procured, to bear a pressure upon the initial investigating officer. It is the sacred duty of any Court to do justice and prevent any kind of abuse at the earliest. I, therefore, discharge all the accused persons namely Om Prakash Grover, Smt. Kanta Rani Grover, Raj Kumar Grover, Ritu Grover, Sunil Kumar Grover, Geetika Grover, Ved Prakash Grover, Vimla Rani Grover and Pooja Grover for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x)(xi) & (xv) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In so far as the other allegations under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are all triable by the Court of Magistrate. In so far as the other allegations under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are all triable by the Court of Magistrate. I, therefore, remand the case to the Court of concerned illaka Magistrate for consideration of charge in respect of the allegations made under the general law i.e. Indian Penal Code on merits. 3. From these extracts from the impugned order and other documents placed on record by the petitioner-complainant which were stated to be a part of the trial Courts record, it becomes evident that some incident took palce in the night of 3rd May, 2008 between the petitioner-tenant and her landlord, accused Om Prakash Grover, and when the police had reached the spot to make enquiries in respect of DDs No. 60-B and 61-B both the sides had refused to make any formal complaints against each other though later on next day FIRs were got registered by both the sides against each other. The police officer who had been entrusted the matter had on return from the spot simply mentioned in his report on 4th May, 2008 vide DD No. 22-A, upon which the trial Judge has placed strong reliance in the impugned order and considered the same to be a first information report which actually is not so, about the refusal of both the parties to make their statements about what all had happened that day. Then on 4th May, 2008 the petitioner-complainant had gone to the police station and lodged an FIR against respondents 2-10 herein for the commission of offences which have already been noticed. 4. The learned trial Judge had at the stage of consideration of charge taken notice of the grievance of the accused persons that in the initial complaint made by the petitioner herein there were no allegations in respect of the offences under the Act of 1989 and she had torn her signatures on that complaint and then had introduced the caste related allegations to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1989 and had sought an explanation from the investigating officer in that regard which was submitted. The trial Judge had then after accepting the version of the investigating officer that he was compelled by the complainant and the media persons to invoke the Act of 1989 against the accused persons discharged all the accused as far as the offences under the Act of 1989 were concerned without going into the question as to whether on merits any offence punishable under the Act of 1989 was made out or not. The manner in which the accused persons were discharged is not recognised under the criminal law of the land. Learned counsel for the complainant had submitted that the learned trial Judge was determined to close the case at the charge stage itself without giving any opportunity to the prosecution to establish the accusations against the accused persons in view of her impression, which was also without any basis, that the Act of 1989 was being misused. 5. Learned counsel was right in his submission that the trial Judge had virtually conducted the trial at the stage of charge and acquitted the accused persons after condemning the complainant as well as the media on the ground that she had misused the provisions of the Act of 1989 and media also. In that way the trial Judge had gone much beyond the jurisdiction vested in a criminal Court at the stage of consideration of charge. Similarly it was not the stage for the trial Judge to make a general observation in the impugned order that the provisions of the Act of 1989 were being misused generally in the country. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant was also right when he submitted that observations made to that effect by the trial Judge at the stage of charge in the impugned order were totally without any basis and uncalled for and should have been avoided and instead the Judge should have concentrated more in finding out whether the ingredients of the offence under the Act of 1989 were present or not in the complaint of the petitioner herein which exercise was unfortunately not undertaken. 6. As far as the offences under IPC are concerned the trial Judge has not considered the case in respect of those offences also and had left that aspect to be decided by the Magistrate which is also not permissible in view of Section 228(1), Cr. 6. As far as the offences under IPC are concerned the trial Judge has not considered the case in respect of those offences also and had left that aspect to be decided by the Magistrate which is also not permissible in view of Section 228(1), Cr. P.C. The trial Judge was expected to find out whether those offences were made out or not and in case some offence was made out for which the accused were to be tried then that charge was required to be framed and the Magistrate could thereafter be asked to try the accused for that offence. So, the impugned order is no order which is expected to be passed by a Sessions Court at the stage of charge and, therefore, is totally unsustainable. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the Sessions Court is directed to pass a fresh order on charge after hearing both the parties but without taking into consideration the stand taken by the Investigating Officer relying upon which the impugned order for discharging the accused of the offences under the Act of 1989 was passed. For fresh hearing in the matter, the Sessions Court shall take up the matter on 5th January, 2012 at 2 p.m. and before that date the Metropolitan Magistrate shall send back the record to the Sessions Court. 8. It is, however, clarified that fresh order shall be passed by the Sessions Court uninfluenced by any observation made in the order which has now been set aside and also by anything said by this Court in the present order since this Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations against the accused. Petition allowed.