JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal misc. petition, accused petitioner has assailed impugned order dated 21.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby learned Court below has declined to interfere with the order of cognizance dated 01.07.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that respondent-complainant lodged FIR against petitioner and two others attributing offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act'). At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Tehsildar, Sangaria. The FIR was lodged by the complainant in the capacity of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nukera, Tehsil Sangaria. Precisely, in the FIR, the complainant has alleged that she hosted a lunch at her residence and invited petitioner and other accused persons but her invitation was declined by them by citing the reason that she belongs to a lower caste. It is in that backdrop, the complainant has averred that the petitioner and others have committed offence punishable under the aforesaid Section. The Investigating Agency proceeded with investigation in the matter and upon conclusion of the investigation did not find any incriminating evidence against the petitioner and others and that eventually facilitated filing of negative final report in the matter before the learned trial Court. Feeling dismayed with the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency, respondent-complaint lodged a protest petition by invoking Section 196 Cr.P.C. The protest petition was considered by the learned trial Court and pursuant to statements of complainant were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. followed by statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. during inquiry. Finally, learned trial Court, on meaningful consideration of the materials available on record, took cognizance against petitioner and others for the offence under the Act. Feeling disgruntled with the order of cognizance, petitioner laid a revision petition before learned Court below and the learned Court below, after examining the matter, declined to interfere with the order of cognisance by the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kumbhat, has strenuously urged that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has completely eschewed the evidence which was collected during investigation and order of cognizance has been passed mechanically. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kumbhat, has strenuously urged that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has completely eschewed the evidence which was collected during investigation and order of cognizance has been passed mechanically. Learned counsel would contend that negative final report was submitted by Police after thorough investigation, wherein the Police has not found any incriminating evidence against petitioner and others for constituting the aforesaid offence under the Act but that part was completely overlooked by the learned trial Court, inasmuch as, there is no proper discussion regarding the reasoning for submission of negative final report in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that even if the averments of the FIR are examined objectively then too no offence as such under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out against the petitioner which was very relevant factor and that has not been taken note of by the learned trial Court. Mr. Kumbhat has also urged that the learned revisional Court has also not examined the order of cognizance in the backdrop of provisions contained under Section 397 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, the learned revisional Court has not examined correctness, legality and propriety of the order of cognizance passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel has also urged that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not akin to revisional jurisdiction of civil Court and Court is required to examine the matter threadbare before recording its satisfaction about its legality and propriety which is not discernible from the impugned order. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that there is no allegation in the FIR that any act or omission which is attributed to the accused-petitioner was within public view, which is pre-requisite for constituting the aforesaid offence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decisions of this Court on following legal precedents:- 1. Dhanpal Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1998 (2) RCD 1184 (Raj.) 2. Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2000 (1) RCD 165 (Raj.) 3. Gopal Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2005 (10) RDD 4197 (Raj.) 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while stoutly defending the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, has urged that no interference in the matter is warranted. Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2000 (1) RCD 165 (Raj.) 3. Gopal Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2005 (10) RDD 4197 (Raj.) 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while stoutly defending the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, has urged that no interference in the matter is warranted. Learned Public Prosecutor has also urged that at the threshold, learned trial Court has taken cognizance and subsequently, learned Court below has also exercised its revisional jurisdiction, therefore, it is not a fit case wherein second review of the order is desirable. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order and the entire record of the case, in my opinion, learned trial Court, while resorting to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence aforesaid, has not cared to examine the requisite ingredients for constituting offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It is also borne out from the impugned order that learned trial Court has not at all considered the evidence, which was collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation, for submission of negative final report. If the order passed by the learned trial Court is examined with bird's eye view, then, in my view, the same has been passed on certain emotional consideration rather dilating on the materials which were available on record. There is yet another aspect of the matter that the learned trial Court has not discussed the negative final report in the order of cognizance but further it has also not made any endeavour to appreciate the statement of the complainant which was of the Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the other witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 6. While it is true that for taking cognizance in the matter, the Court is obliged to prima facie examine the incriminating evidence but then Court cannot ignore a very vital aspect as to whether there is any material available on record to constitute the offence which is sought to be slapped against the accused persons. 7. In Dhanpal Jain (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has found that in want of evidence of insulting or intimidating the complainant in public view with intent to humiliate him cannot constitute offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989 and consequently by order of cognizance by the Magistrate is bad in law. 7. In Dhanpal Jain (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has found that in want of evidence of insulting or intimidating the complainant in public view with intent to humiliate him cannot constitute offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act of 1989 and consequently by order of cognizance by the Magistrate is bad in law. The Court held: "So far offence under Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, Section 3 (i)(x) of the Act requires that the alleged insult or humiliation should have been caused in a place within public view. In the instant case the complainant approached the accused persons at two places, at their house, and at their shop. So far as the first incident is concerned that incident occurred at the shop of Dhanpal and all that occurred at the shop was that Dhanpal questioned the complainant's right to demand the accounts and did not give him the accounts relating to the income of the bus. There is nothing to show that at his shop Dhanpal intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with the intent of humiliating him. The second incident occurred at the house of accused person because it has not been alleged that the second incident occurred at any public place. In the absence any allegation that the alleged insult was offered in public view, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is prima facie made out by the facts alleged by the complainant. In view of the above facts the learned Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act nor he could legitimately issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. on a charge under Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act place." 8. In Bhanwar Singh (supra) Court has observed that if the Magistrate has not mentioned the fact in the order which constitute the offence, it is a clear case of non-application of mind. The Court held: "Learned Judicial Magistrate has not mentioned those facts which in his opinion constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The impugned order does not appear to have been passed after applying the mind in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 190 and Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held: "Learned Judicial Magistrate has not mentioned those facts which in his opinion constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The impugned order does not appear to have been passed after applying the mind in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 190 and Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held in several cases of this Court and decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that issuing process against an accused is a serious matter and judicial mind be applied by the Magistrate before issuing process under Section 204 of CrPC, to find out if there are sufficient grounds for issuing in the case. Unless the Magistrate is satisfied, after judicial application of mind to the material placed before him, that the facts prima facie established before him constitute an offence of which he can take cognizance in accordance with law, he cannot be said to be justified in issuing process against any person. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without considering whether the facts prima-facie established before him by the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and therefore, it is a fit case in which inherent powers of this Court should be invoked for setting aside the impugned order and giving a direction to the learned, Judicial Magistrate to consider the matter afresh, after hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused person for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act." 9. In Gopal Sharma & Ors. (supra), Court has dilated upon enjoining duties upon a Court to scrupulously scrutinize the final report filed by the police while taking cognizance after recording statement of complainant and her witnesses for determining whether cognizance can be taken or not. In Gopal Sharma & Ors. (supra), Court has dilated upon enjoining duties upon a Court to scrupulously scrutinize the final report filed by the police while taking cognizance after recording statement of complainant and her witnesses for determining whether cognizance can be taken or not. "In view of above, the position is now well settled that a Court need not to keep track of the investigation and watch its day to day progress but when the investigation culminates into a final report the Court has to scrutinize the final report by applying its judicial mind, take decision whether to accept or reject the same, and while taking cognizance after the statements are recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Court has to consider the final report as well as the investigation done by the police to determine whether cognizance on the basis of complaint can be taken or not. That has not been done by the learned Magistrate in the present case before passing the order impugned. Consequently, the present revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the order dated 07.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Jr. Division) 1st Class, Bikaner in Case No.604/2002 is set aside and the matter is sent back for proceeding in accordance with law." 10. The so-called allegation, against the petitioner that he declined to accept invitation of the complainant for lunch solely on the ground that she belongs to lower caste, was not seen by any person i.e. in public view and therefore, obviously there was no material available before the learned trial Court to arrive at this conclusion that the alleged utterance of the petitioner was in public view. The judgments referred to supra, on which, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, are examined by me and in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, I feel inclined to apply ratio decidendi of all these verdicts as they are touching the merits of the case to the hilt. In view of foregoing discussion, learned Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it for examining correctness, legality or propriety of the order of cognizance. On the face of it, the order of cognizance is laconic and therefore, both these orders are not sustainable. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, learned Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it for examining correctness, legality or propriety of the order of cognizance. On the face of it, the order of cognizance is laconic and therefore, both these orders are not sustainable. 11. In totality, I feel persuaded that both the Courts below have committed manifest error of law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice, therefore, it is a fit case wherein inherent powers are to be exercised for upsetting both the impugned orders.Upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition is allowed, the order impugned passed by learned Court below and the order of cognizance passed by learned trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******