- (1.) IN the Instant Criminal revisional application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners sought for quashing of the Siliguri police Station FIR No. 279/2007 relating to the offences punishable under section 3 (2) (i) (ii) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the following grounds, (a) The order under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pursuant to which the impugned FIR was registered, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (b) On the face of the allegations contained in the impugned FIR no offence has been made out.
(2.) MR. Sekhar Basu, the learned Advocate appearing in support of this application firstly contended that the Special Court constituted under scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, being a Sessions Court and not an original Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act unless the case is committed to it under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus not being empowered to take cognizance of such offences under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a police report is not empowered to pass any order under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure in respect of any complaint relating to such offence. Accordingly, mr. Basu submitted since the impugned FIR was recorded pursuant to an order which is patently illegal and without jurisdiction the same is liable to be quashed. In this connection Mr. Basu relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2000)2 SCC 504 : 2000 C Cr LR (SC) 162. Mr. Basu next contended that taking the entire allegations made in the impugned FIR and accepting the same to be true on its face value, no offence punishable under the said Act having been made out the impugned fir is liable to be quashed. According to Mr. Basu since there was no allegation that the defacto-complainant was either tried or convicted in a criminal trial for any capital offence or for an offence which is not capital but punishable with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or upwards where the petitioner gave and fabricated false evidence intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that they will thereby cause conviction of the complainant for such offences, no case for commission of offences punishable under Section 3 (2) (i) and 3 (2) (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be said to have been made out against them. He further submitted that in absence of any allegation that the petitioner committed any offence under the Indian Penal code punishable with the imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or such property belong to such member, no offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be said to have been made out. Mr. Basu further submitted that the entire allegations made in the FIR against the petitioners is that in connection with a departmental proceeding in the statement of imputation and article of charges, the petitioner being the disciplinary authorities made various false allegations against the opposite party No. 2, the defacto-complainant and took various disciplinary action against him and strenuously urged those allegations, even accepting to be true on its face value, by itself cannot be the foundation of the alleged offences. Besides the above decision Mr. Basu further relied on the decisions related to the case of Subash Chandra v. State of U. P. and Ors. , reported in 2000 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (SC) 171, Abdul Rashid Siddiqui and ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , reported in AIR 1995 (MP) 138, state of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy and Ors. , reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defacto-complainant strongly repudiated the argument of Mr. Basu. According to Mr. Mukherjee the special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been constituted with the object for speedy disposal of the trial for any offences committed under the said Act. The Special Court constituted under the said Act cannot be equated with the ordinary Sessions court and the Special Court is very much empowered to take cognizance of offence committed under the said Act directly on the police report. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relied on the decisions of Punjab and haryana High Court in the case of Dara Singh @ Darbara Singh and Ors. v. Tej Kaur and Ors. , reported in 2000 Criminal Law Journal 3145, a decision of andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A. S. Damodar Reddy v. State of andhra Pradesh, reported in 1996 Criminal Law Journal 3271.;