A.C. Goyal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. The complainant-Deepa Ram by caste Balai, submitted a written report at Police Station Laxmangarh, on 28.5.2000 with certain allegations against the accused-petitioners. FIR No. 133/2000 was registered Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 Indian Penal Code and Under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'Act'). Learned counsel submitted that two First Information Reports were lodged earlier against the accused-petitioners and after investigation final reports were submitted in both the FIRs. He also referred one order dated 7.4.2001, drawn Under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and according to that order the land in dispute was found in possession of the accused-petitioners. He also referred the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, dated 4.7.2002, rejecting the application Under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code wherein it was observed that statements recorded Under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code did not disclose any allegation on the basis of the caste but in subsequent statements recorded Under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, allegations to that effect were made. According to learned counsel the accused-petitioners, thus are being continuously harassed and it is a fit case for bail. He also referred two documents of allotment of the land by Gram Panchayat in favour of the accused-petitioners-Fateh Singh and his brother Narendra Singh. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that both the final reports were rejected by the concerned Magistrate and cognizance was taken and the accused-petitioners are facing trial in both the cases. It was also submitted that allegations constituting the offence u/s. 3 of the Act are contained in the FIR. Hence in view of the bar created by Sec.18 of the Act, this application is liable to be dismissed and a Full Bench judgment of this Court delivered in Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000 (1) RCC 620 was referred.
(2.) I have considered the rival submissions. The Full Bench of this Court held that if allegations are made in the FIR constituting an offence u/s. 3 of the Act, application u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In the instant case allegations of offence u/s. 3 of the Act were made in the FIR hence this application u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.;