Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 10.4.2000 whereby Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City took cognizance of offences under Section 3(1)(ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act') against petitioners in Criminal Case No. 105/2000, which was upheld by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City in Criminal Revision No. 60/2000 vide order dated 26.4.2000.
(2.) Facts, in brief, relevant for controversy raised herein are that complainant was tenant of premise owned by petitioners. Civil suit was filed by petitioners on 31.8.1994 for recovery of arrears of rent due since 1.10.1991. Pendente suit, provisional rent was determined by civil Court vide order dated 2.6,1995 (Ann. 1) finding arrears of rent due of Rs. 20,593/- against tenant (respondent No. 2) to be deposited within 15 days - against which he preferred appeal but was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.1995 (Ann. 2) which was assailed by him in revision before this Court but with same fate vide order dated 23.9.1996 (Ann. 3). Since respondent No. 2 failed to pay single penny against arrears of rent provisionally, his defence was struck off, as a consequence whereof, civil suit itself was decreed vide judgment dated 3.12.1999 (Ann. 5), against which he preferred appeal wherein appellate Court directed respondent No. 2 (tenant) vide order dated 6.3.2000 to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month qua last outstanding rent and Rs. 400/- per month regularly, which according to Counsel for petitioners, could not have been deposited till instant petition was filed.
(3.) It is the case of petitioners (accused) that report was lodged by respondent No. 2 (tenant) on. 6.11.1997 out of frustration on failure in eviction proceedings and on such report, F.I.R. No. 70/1997 was registered on 10.11.1997 at I'S Bhatta Basti (Jaipur) for offence under Section 3 of the Act. Matter was investigated - in course whereof, statements of neighbours were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer finally concluded that a false case was registered - as a consequence whereof, submitted negative final report (Ann. 6) on 31.12.1997 besides requesting to file complaint against complainant for offence under Section 182, I.P.C. Against final report (supra), protest petition was filed by respondent No. 2 (complainant) and statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. were recorded. Without considering detailed final report, learned Magistrate proceeded merely on the protest petition and statements recorded thereon under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and took cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Act vide order dated 10.4.2000 (Ann. 8) and issued process for summoning petitioners - against which they preferred revision petition but was dismissed by Court of revision vide order impugned. Hence this petition.;