- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders dated 16th March, 96 as well as the order dated 26th June, 96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Doongargarh in criminal case No. 116/96. By the order dated 16th March, 96, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(iv) and (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against the accused Rameshwarnath, Deepanath, Chandunath and Sawannath, residents of village Purnasar, tehsil Doongargarh. By the same order, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S. 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against the police officers (1) the then Superintendent of Police, Churu and (2) the then Circle Officer (Shri Rampal the petitioner), who investigated the case and after investigation submitted the final report in the case. By order dated 26th June, 96, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application by which the petitioner had raised certain objections against taking of cognizance of the offence under S. 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and had requested that the proceedings against him should be dropped.
(2.) At the outset, it may be pointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not even cared to mention the names of the police officers against whom he directed the issue of process by his order dated 16th March, 96. Similarly, in the second order dated 26th June, 96, the name of the petitioner, who had raised objections against the taking of cognizance has not even been mentioned. It is necessary that the subordinate Courts while disposing of applications filed by parties must indicate on whose behalf the application had been filed. The name of the applicant must be disclosed in the order passed by the subordinate Courts, failing to do so, would be regarded as a neglect of duty. Similarly, it is necessary that when processes are issued against any person or persons under S. 204, Cr.P.C., the name as well as sufficient particulars of the accused, who is to be proceeded against must be disclosed in the order so that no innocent person is arrested on account of a mistake which is likely to be committed if the names of the accused persons are not given in the order. Brevity to the extent of omitting the names of the parties, whose rights are affected by the order of the Courts, is neither permitted by law nor it is permitted by practice. Neglect on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate in this behalf is serious and this Court expects that such neglect will not be committed by the subordinate Judicial Officers in future.
(3.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be summarised as below :- One Gangu Ram filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate alleging therein that he was the owner of agriculture field Khasra No. 605, measuring 44 bighas and 5 biswas situated in Rohi of village Punrasar. According to averments made in the complaint, the complainant had gone outside his village for the purpose of earning his living by working as labourer. He remained outside his village for 14 years and during this period his field remained uncultivated. It was alleged that Rameshwar Nath committed tress-pass on 10 bighas of the land belonging to the complainant. When the complainant came to know about it, he made a protest to Rameshwar Nath and Rameshwar Nath agreed to vacate the portion of the land, which he had tresspassed. But, when the season of sowing crop came, in place of vacating the land Rameshwar Nath, Deep Nath, Chandu Nath and Sawan Nath cultivated the land including 10 bighas in respect of which tresspass is alleged to have been committed by Rameshwar Nath. The complainant then went to the accused and in presence of Kusalaram and Kumbharam, the accused persons abused and threatened to tresspass the whole of his land and also threatened to beat him. On account of the persuation, the accused at the time did not beat the complainant. The complaint filed by Gangu Ram was sent to the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156, Cr.P.C. for investigation. Investigation was entrusted to Shri Rampal Swami (petitioner). After conducting investigation, the petitioner in his capacity as Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that no case for sending anyone for trial was made out. He, therefore, forwarded the investigation to the Superintendent of Police, Churu with his recommendation that the case was of a civil nature, therefore, a final report should be given. Later on, under the directions of the Investigating Officer, Daluram, Station House Officer of the Police submitted the final report in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. After the submission of the final report in the Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate served the summons of the complainant. The complainant appeared in the Court with his counsel and opposed the final report. The order dated 16th March, 96 further shows that the complainant was examined under S. 200, Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Kusalaram and Kumbharam were examined under Section 202, Cr.P.C. After taking into consideration, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S. 3(1)(IV), (V) and (VI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against Rameshwar Nath, Deepnath, Chandunath and Sawannath. After putting the signature below the order, the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded to pass another order taking cognizance of the offence under S. 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and directed the issue of process against the then Circle Officer and the District Superintendent of Police, Churu. The learned Judicial Magistrate even did not care to give the names of the accused persons against whom he directed the issue of process. Rampal, who was the Investigating Officer and who had submitted the final report in the case mentioned above, filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate in which he raised several objections against taking of cognizance and issued of process. The application filed by Shri Rampal was rejected vide order dated 26th June, 96. In this order dated 26th June, 96, the name of the applicant has not been given by the learned Judicial Magistrate. ;