Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 1119 of 2012, whereby cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the complaint case was transferred for enquiry and trial. By way of Interlocutory Application No. 5224 of 2015, the petitioners have brought on record, and challenged the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by Sri Arjun Saw, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in the said C.P. Case No. 1119 of 2012, whereby, on the basis of allegations in the complaint petition, the statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of three witnesses examined at the enquiry stage, the prima facie offence under Sections 342, 352, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have been found against the petitioners.
(2.) THE facts of this case lie in a short compass. Admittedly, the petitioners are the tenants of the complainant opposite party No. 2, who had earlier lodged a police case being S.C./S.T. Sector -IV, P.S. Case No. 31 of 2012 against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, claiming that she is the owner of Plot No. G.A. -28, situated at City Centre, Bokaro, on which there were shops which the accused persons had taken on rent. After the death of her husband, the complainant used to collect the rent of the shops. It is alleged that the rent was not being paid and when the complainant along with her daughter went to demand the rent from the accused persons, they misbehaved and humiliated them in the name of their caste. There is also allegation of threats given by the accused persons to the complainant. It is also alleged that the agreement with some of the petitioners had already expired, but still they were forcibly occupying the tenanted shops. With these allegations the F.I.R. was lodged, in which after investigation, the police submitted the final form stating that there was civil dispute between the parties, whereupon the present protest -cum -complaint case, being C.P. No. 1119 of 2012 was filed by the complainant opposite party No. 2 against the submission of final form in favour of the petitioners by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case only due to the tenancy dispute between the parties being landlady and tenant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even the allegation of abusing the complainant and her daughter in the name of caste had not taken place in public view, as it is alleged that the said occurrence had taken in the chamber of petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel submitted that it is a pure case of civil dispute between the parties, but a colour of criminal case has been given to it, for compelling the petitioners to vacate the shops. It is submitted that the case was fully investigated by the police, whereupon the police submitted the final form in favour of the petitioners stating that there was only a civil dispute between the parties. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioners, including the orders taking cognizance and finding prima facie offence against the petitioners.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant - opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer and have submitted that on the basis of the allegations against the petitioners, the offence is clearly made out against them. It is also submitted that the complainant had supported the case in her statement recorded on solemn affirmation and three witnesses were also examined in the enquiry stage, on the basis of which the prima facie offence has been found against the petitioners. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Court below and there can be no interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioners at this stage.;