Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 915/2013 (G.R. No. 3863/2013) under Sec. 406/34 IPC and Ss. 3(x)/4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R it is evident that the dispute is of civil in nature as it was on non -payment of the wages that the present case has been instituted. That the occurrence took place on 10.9.2012 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 11.9.2013 and there is no explanation for the delay. It is submitted that the present case has been instituted to pressurise the petitioner to pay the wages and this Court, by order dated 3.12.2014, had directed the petitioner to pay the total dues along with interest and the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,50,000/ - by way of demand draft in the name of the informant before the Registrar General of this Court. That in the present case a civil dispute is being given a colour of criminal offence and institution of such type of cases is an abuse of process of law. That the criminal proceedings cannot be resorted to as a short cut method for settlement of civil dispute and such criminal cases will amount to abuse of process of the court infringing upon the liberty of the accused who have complied with the order. The other limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that F.I.R. was registered by a police officer in the rank of ASI who is not competent in terms of Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. On this score also F.I.R. is fit to be quashed.
(2.) Mr. Mokhatar Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. assisted by learned A.P.P. has submitted that as per Sec. 9 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') the State Government can confer power on any officer of the State Government if it considers it necessary or expedient to do so in respect to arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons before any special court and pursuant to the said power the State Government has, by Notification dated 24.11.2012, empowered the Inspector and ASI to investigate and prosecute the cases in terms of Sec. 9 of the Act. It is contended that from the recital of the F.I.R it is evident that this petitioner has abused the informant by his caste name in the public place i.e. in the court premises and has not paid the wages accordingly, ingredients for the offence under Ss. 406, 323, 341 and 34 IPC as well as Sec. 3(x) of the Act is made out against the petitioner and the power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in such circumstance.
(3.) Heard. Perused the materials on record and the Notification as cited by the learned counsel for the O.P. As per the Notification dated 24.11.2012 the officer in the rank of Inspector, S.I. and A.S.I, has been conferred power under Sec. 9 of the S.C./S.T. Act to investigate and prosecute the cases under the Act. The F.I.R. has been registered on 11.9.2013. It is well settled that power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously. As per the narration in the F.I.R. it is evident that ingredient for the offence under Ss. 406, 323, 341 and 34 IPC as well as Sec. 3(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the petitioner. However, offence under Sec. 4 of the Act is not applicable. It is also well settled that in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. it is not proper for the Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an inquiry in respect of merit of accusation or conduct a mini trial or make a roving inquiry at this stage.;