Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant -opposite party No. 3 the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in G.R. No. 50 of 2002, arising out of Thethaitangar P.S. Case No. 2 of 2002, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(ix)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as also under Ss. 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The record shows that the police case was instituted on the basis of complaint case filed by the complainant -informant, who was posted as Block Development Officer (BDO), Thethaitangar. The petitioner was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Simdega and it is alleged by the complainant -informant that on 22.1.2002, the petitioner came to the office of the complainant and abused him in the name of his caste, stating that he had made complain against the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. It appears that the said complaint petition was sent for institution of police case, on the basis of which, police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. It appears that upon investigation, the police submitted charge -sheet against the petitioner, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in G.R. No. 50 of 2002.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. From the complaint petition, it would be appear that the complainant's name is Ajay Kumar, which does not disclose the caste of the complainant and in the entire complaint petition, it is not stated that the complainant belongs to either SC or ST category. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that no offence can be said to be made against the petitioner for the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1561 of 2013, Md. Haider Ali vs. State of Jharkhand, decided on 15th July, 2014, wherein, there was no averment in the complaint petition that the complainant belonged to either the Scheduled Tribe or the Scheduled Caste category, it was held that no offence was not made out under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.;