JUDGMENT :- RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.09.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the revision preferred against the order dated 20.07.2007, passed in complaint case no. 220 of 2007 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh taking cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(iv)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been dismissed. 3. It appears that a complaint was instituted by the opposite party no. 2, in which it has been stated that he has a piece of land at village-Giddi bearing khata no. 25, plot no. 510/559 and 510/847, which is recorded in the khatiyan in the name of his grandfather namely late Chepa Manjhi. It has been alleged that the accused persons with the help of some workers put up materials for tower installation on the said plot and on 24.05.2006 began to excavate the land. It has been stated that on opposition being made by the O.P. No. 2, co-accused Ramavtar Agarwal informed him that the land belongs to him and he had executed an agreement with Airtel for installation of a tower. It has further been alleged that thereafter the opposite party no. 2 went to police station and submitted a written complaint and on the direction of the officer in-charge of the concerned police station, the O.P. No. 2 submitted an application before the Circle Officer and the Aanchal Amin measured the said land and as per the report of the Aanchal Amin, the tower was found to be in the land of O.P. No. 2. 4. After an inquiry was conducted under section 202 Cr. P.C. by examining the complainant under solemn affirmation and four of his witnesses, vide order dated 20.07.2007, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(iv)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Against the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2007, a revision was preferred by the present petitioner being Cr. Against the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2007, a revision was preferred by the present petitioner being Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2008, which was, however, dismissed on 19.09.2008 and which is under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that since the petitioner had joined a new company as such he was not aware of the order of dismissal dated 19.09.2008, passed in Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2008 and immediately on coming to know about the fate of the said revision, the present application has been filed. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the revisional court dated 19.09.2008 is not a speaking order. It has further been submitted that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was an employee of Bharti Airtel Ltd. and he being an employee of the company was discharging his duty but the company was never made an accused. It has also been submitted that in the complaint petition, it has been specifically stated by the complainant that he had approached the police station for taking necessary action but since nothing positive was done, the opposite party no. 2 was constrained to file a complaint case. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes And the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it was incumbent upon the opposite party no. 2 to approach the Superintendent of Police in writing and in spite of the same and if there still remained any grievance, he could have filed the complaint case. It has also been submitted that in the legal notice, which was issued on behalf of O.P. No. 2 dated 22.01.2007, the same is silent with respect to the allegations made in the complaint petition and in fact the legal notice was only restricted to the payment of rent on account of installation of tower in the land, which was allegedly claimed by the opposite party no. 2. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to an agreement with Ramavtar Agarwal, who claimed to be the owner of land, in which the tower was installed, the rent was also accordingly paid to him and if at all the allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true in its entirety, then the said Ramavtar Agarwal should have been arrayed as an accused to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not a member of scheduled tribe as would be evident from the list of schedule tribes in the district of Hazaribagh, which has been appended to the main application. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that from the complaint petition, it would be evident from the report of Aanchal Amin that the land, in which the tower was installed, was in the name of O.P. No. 2 and the accused persons by conniving had constructed the said tower in the land of opposite party no. 2. It has further been submitted that although the revision application was dismissed on 19.09.2008 but the present application under section 482 Cr. P.C. was preferred after three years and no plausible explanation has been given by the petitioner with respect to delay in filing of the present application. It has also been submitted that in absence of any explanation with respect to delay in filing of the application, the same may be dismissed. It has further been submitted that whatever materials have been brought on record by the petitioner are defence documents with respect to him and this Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. is not empowered to consider the said documents at this stage. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that a legal notice was issued on behalf of opposite party no. 2 on 22.01.2007 to the petitioner in his capacity as an Assistant Legal Manager, Bharti Airtel Co. Ltd., in which a request was made to enter into an agreement with the opposite party no. 2 and to pay the entire amount of rent immediately. 2 on 22.01.2007 to the petitioner in his capacity as an Assistant Legal Manager, Bharti Airtel Co. Ltd., in which a request was made to enter into an agreement with the opposite party no. 2 and to pay the entire amount of rent immediately. After issuance of said legal notice, the complaint petition was instituted, in which it was specifically mentioned by the complainant that in spite of approaching the police station and in spite of the assurance given by the police officials, no case was instituted against the accused persons, which resulted in opposite party no. 2 preferring a complaint petition. 9. Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes And the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules relates to the information to police officer-in charge of a Police Station and Sub Rule (3) of Rule 5 reads as follows:- "(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-rule (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who after investigation either by himself or by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall make an order in writing to the officer in charge of the concerned police station to enter the substance of that information to be entered in the book to be maintained by that police station." 10. On perusal of sub rule (3) of Rule 5, it appears that if the grievance of the aggrieved person to record any information is not redressed, information may be sent in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned and thereafter an investigation may be conducted by the Superintendent of Police or by a person not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sub rule (3) of Rule 5 does not use the word 'must' or 'shall' which in effect means that it is directory in nature and in view of language of sub rule (3) of Rule 5, the same does not mandate that in the event the officer in charge refuses to record the information of the person aggrieved, information has to be sent to the S.P. concerned for investigation by a person not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In such circumstances, the complainant-O.P. No. 2 having not taken recourse to Sub Rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1993 has not committed any illegality by straightway filing a complaint petition. In such situation, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to mandatory nature of Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is devoid of any merit. In the context of the company not being made a party, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cases of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516 and Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 . In the case of R. Kalyani (supra), it was held as follows:- "27. If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being variously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused. In any event, it would be a fair thing to do so, as legal fiction is raised both against the Company as well as the persons responsible for the acts of the Company. 11. In the case of Aneeta Hada (supra), it was held as follows:- "43. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh (supra) which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal (supra) does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada (supra) is overruled with the qualifier as stated in paragraph 37. The decision in Modi Distilleries (supra) has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove. 12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner being an officer of Bharti Airtel Company Ltd. was discharging his duty by overseeing installation of mobile towers. In the complaint case, admittedly Bharti Airtel Co. Ltd. was not made an accused. 12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner being an officer of Bharti Airtel Company Ltd. was discharging his duty by overseeing installation of mobile towers. In the complaint case, admittedly Bharti Airtel Co. Ltd. was not made an accused. It has not been mentioned in the complaint petition that petitioner was incharge of and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. The petitioner has been sought to be made an accused by fastening vicarious liability upon him being an official of Bharti Airtel Co. Ltd. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the fact that the petitioner was not a member of scheduled tribe, the same is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be looked into by this Court by exercising it's jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the fact remains that while passing the order dated 19.09.2008 in Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2008, the learned revisional court has not considered the entire aspect of the matter and has straightway dismissed the revision application by merely indicating that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused persons after careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record. There is no indication in the order dated 19.09.2008 that the revisional court had applied its mind to the facts of the case as well as the allegations, which have been levelled in the complaint petition. 13. In such view of the matter, the order dated 19.09.2008, passed in Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2008 by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh cannot be sustained. This application is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 19.09.2008, passed in Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2008 by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, is set aside and the mater is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.