Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 546 (PAT)

Vakil Kumar Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-03-30

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard Shri Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nitya Nand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner, who is informant in Sadar Ekma P.S. Case No.20 of 2008 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, has approached this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an order dated 22.10.2009 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra-cum-Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)Act in Sessions Trial No.159 of 2009. By the said order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the petition filed on behalf of accused persons under Section 228(i)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and remitted back the matter to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for proceeding with the case in respect of offences under the provisions of Indian Penal code. The court below was satisfied that on materials available on record, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under I.P.C. as well as S.C. & S.T. Act, the police after investigation submitted charge sheet under said provisions and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after submission of charge sheet, had taken cognizance of the offence even under S.C. & S.T. Act and as such at the stage of charge, learned Sessions Judge was not authorized to pass a different order or allow the petition filed by the accused persons. 4. I have perused the order sheet as well as F.I.R. On perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it is evident that though fact mentioned in the F.I.R. did not disclose any ingredient of offence under the S.C. & S.T. Act to the reasons best known to the Officer Incharge in the F.I.R., he had incorporated Section 3(x) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. 5. After going through the material on record, the court is of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while allowing the petition filed by the accused persons under Section 228 (i)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had committed no error and order requires no interference. 5. After going through the material on record, the court is of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while allowing the petition filed by the accused persons under Section 228 (i)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had committed no error and order requires no interference. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that once cognizance order was passed under the provisions of S.C. & S.T. Act, the Sessions Judge was not authorized to pass such order is simply misconceived. I do not find any merit in the petition. 6. The petition stands dismissed.