D.K.SINH, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2010 recorded by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro by which the order recorded by Shri S.D.Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R.No.262 of 2004 on 18.02.2010 was set aside and it was held by allowing the revision that there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that the offence was fit for commitment to the Court of the Special Judge, Bokaro for trial against the petitioners.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant O.P.No.2 by presenting a written report before the Bokaro Steel City Police Station narrated that on 17.03.2004 at about 6 a.m. when he reached near his Quarter No.352 -III/B, he found that his neighbour petitioner - Akhouri Basant Teshwari Prasad with his wife of Quarter No.355 - III/B suddenly started abusive language against him in his caste name by calling him 'Harizan Chamar' to which he asked him not to use such words whereupon both the husband and the wife held him by his collor and slapped him. When his wife came to rescue him on his alarm, she was also assaulted by them and in the same sequence the accused removed the chain made of gold worth Rs. 8000/ - from her neck. Disclosing the genesis, the informant narrated that the petitioners used to throw garbage in the campus of his house to which he used to oppose their conduct but he was threatened by the accused Akhouri Basant Teshwari Prasad, that he was the leader of B.J.P. and he would get his son and daughter abducted. The informant alleged that the accused had been extending torture only because he was a Harizan. Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 66 of 2004 was registered on 17.03.2004 for the alleged offence under Section 323/341/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on his written complaint. Learned Counsel submitted that the I.O. after investigation of the case submitted charge -sheet under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and not under any provision of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After submission of charge -sheet a petition was filed on behalf of the informant Opposite Party No.2 before Smt. Kavita Das, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in whose file the case record was pending stating that from the facts of the case it would be reflected that the case should have been lodged as also for the offence under S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further alleged that the Investigating Officer did not submit charge -sheet for the said offence. The petition further contained that the informant and his witness had no occasion to submit before the Court for the addition of the offence under Section 3(i) (x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The charge -sheet was submitted on 30.10.2004 but this petition was filed by the informant before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate on 10.03.2005. Shri Tripathi, the learned Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 18.02.2010 observed that the cognizance of the offence was taken on 03.11.2004 by the C.J.M., Bokaro for the alleged offence under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and ostensibly no cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against any of the accused. It was held that the informant had chosen wrong forum for redressal of his grievance as he ought to have moved before the Revisional Court for the redressal of the same, as such, his petition filed on 10.03.2005 was rejected. The petitioner then preferred a Criminal Revision No.60 of 2010 against the order impugned dated 18.02.2010 passed in G.R.No.262 of 2004 by which Shri S.D.Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro rejected the petition filed on behalf of the informant for addition of the relevant Sections of the offence under Section 3(i) (x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the order recorded in Criminal Revision wherein the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro observed, "From perusal of the impugned order, I do find that the Ld. J.M. has clearly mentioned in the last paragraph that "it appears that in this case, altogether six witnesses have been examined. In this case, I.O. has not been examined. Place of occurrence is house of informant, this is not public place and no any offence committed by the accused persons u/s 3 and 4 of the S.C./ST Act." Thus I do find that the Ld. J.M. has not properly considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in which, they have specifically stated that the occurrence of this case, has taken place from the outside of the house of the informant i.e. public road at turning point. The Ld. J.M. has committed grave error to mention the P.O. is the house of the informant. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Ld. J.M. has not meticulously considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective and arrived on wrong conclusion, which is liable to be set aside.";