P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Accused-petitioners by the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing FIR No. 152/2013 of Police Station Sadar, District Pali and further proceedings in furtherance thereto. That apart, the petitioners have also prayed for quashing order dated 10th of November 2014 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali, dismissing his revision petition against order dated 5th of March 2014 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali.
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that second respondent-complainant lodged an FIR on 2nd of August 2013 against the accused-petitioners that at about 1:30 PM they made an attempt to set at fire boundary fence of his house and when his aunt (uncle's wife) and other aunt (father's sister) resisted them from doing so, both were given beatings and insulted with verbal utterances with specific imputation to their caste as they belong to scheduled caste. The complainant has substantiated his allegation as mentioned in the FIR by asserting that he belongs to caste Garuda and a resident of Dayalpura. On the basis of report, a case under Section 323, 436, 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v), (x), (xi) and 2(4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act') was registered against petitioners. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet against the petitioners for offence under Sections 303, 354, 527, 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(x), (xi) of the Act is submitted before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court').
(3.) As per version of the petitioners, learned trial Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences under the Act against the petitioners despite objection by the petitioners that complainant belongs to Garuda caste, which is not mentioned/enlisted in the notification issued by the Government, as scheduled caste. By relying on the Government notification, petitioners urged before the learned trial Court that cognizance for the offence under the Act cannot be taken against them. However, their effort proved abortive.;