RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide Complaint Case No. 355 of 1998 as also the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by Shri P.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in the aforesaid case, whereby cognizance for the offence under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the alleged violation of Clauses viii, ix and x of Sec. 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken by the Court below.

(2.) PRAYER for quashing has been made on the basis of two main grounds; the first ground is that the order of cognizance and continuation of the criminal proceeding, is bad in law and is an abuse of the process of the Court on account of the fact that even on the basis of the entire allegations in the complaint, no offence either for the offence u/s. 3 or Sec. 4 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioners. The second ground is that the case has been filed with mala fide intention and by way of taking revenge against the petitioners for the case instituted by them against the complainant/opposite party No. 2, for the offences u/s. 33 of the IndianF orest Act, 1927.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint has been filed by the complainant by suppressing the material facts that on the aforesaid date of occurrence, the truck loaded with stone chips was seized by the forest guard on the ground that the stone chips were illegally lifted from within the forest area and a case for the offence u/s. 33 of the Indian Forest Act was registered not only against the driver of the truck, but also against the owner of the vehicle and others who were arrested at the spot. The truck, which was seized, was confiscated after initiation of confiscation proceeding vide confiscation case No. 1 of 1999. The prayer for release of the seized truck made by its owner was refused even by the Hon ble High Court. Learned Counsel adds further that even on reading the entire allegation in the complaint, no offence u/s. 3 or 4 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out as because, though it is alleged that the accused persons had indulged in abuse against the complainant, but such alleged acts were confined within the office of the Forest Ranger and not in public view. Referring to the ingredients of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, learned Counsel submits that the offences could be made only if the act is committed in public place or public view and this essential ingredient of the offences is conspicuously lacking in the complaint of the complainant and yet, the learned Court below has passed the impugned order of cognizance without application of judicial mind. It is further submitted that it is apparent that from the background of the facts and circumstances also that the complaint was filed entirely with mala fide intention for causing harassment to the petitioners and to take revenge against them for the case instituted against the complainant and others under the penal provisions of the Indian Forest Act.