- (1.) The present miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, district Pali (for short, "the trial Court") in Criminal Original Case No. 496/2010 rejecting the application filed by the petitionercomplainant under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") for taking cognizance against the respondent No.2, the investigating officer, under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act of 1989").
(2.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that the First Information Report was registered at the instance of the petitioner-complainant, being FIR No. 108/2009 and the investigation on the said FIR was handed over to the respondent No.2, who, at the relevant time, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bali, district Pali. The FIR filed by the petitioner-complainant was registered against three persons, viz. Rushtam, Shakooor and Ayyub forthe offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and Section 3 (i)(x) of the Act of 1989. He submits that without making proper investigation of the FIR, the respondent No.2 proceeded to file a Final Report in the matter, on which the notices were issued to the petitioner-complainant. The petitioner-complainant, on appearing, filed an application under Section 190 of the Code before the trial court for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Act of 1989 against the respondent No.2, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order.
(3.) Thus, he submits that the respondent No.2 did not perform his duties as prescribed under Section 4 of the Act of 1989 and therefore the respondent No.2 was also liable to be prosecuted for the said offence. He submits that the petitioner-complainant filed the application for proceeding against the respondent No.2. And for taking cognizance against him, but the learned Magistrate has erroneously rejected the said application by the impugned order and that the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction to prosecute the respondent No.2.;