BRAJBHUSHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner is seeking for quashment of the criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.51 of 2016 pending before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur and sought for following reliefs:-

(2.) Facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No.4 got married and started living as husband and wife. Some dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.4 on the issue of extramarital relationship of the petitioner with one another woman named in the complaint. It is alleged that when said extramarital relationship was objected by respondent No.4/complainant, petitioner abused and also threatened her. On 3/8/2016, respondent No.4/complainant was abused in filthy language and also by her caste and threatened her. She made report to the Inspector General of Police and other police officials. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed a complaint case under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. for commission of offence under Ss. 497, 294, 506-BIPC, Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") before Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur. Upon receiving the complaint, Special Judge proceeded with the complaint and recorded preliminary statement of the complainant as well as her witnesses, registered complaint on 3/4/2017 and issued process for appearance of the petitioner and another non-applicant therein.

(3.) Shri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant could not have filed the complaint case under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. directly before the Special Judge. Special Court cannot take cognizance of the offence directly. If any offence is committed against the complainant then it is to be filed primarily before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Special Court could have taken cognizance only upon committal of the case by Magistrate. In case at hand, respondent No.4 filed complaint case/application directly before Special Court. Hence the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Special Case No.51 of 2016 in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, Bilaspur is liable to be quashed. It is further pointed out that before lodging complaint, respondent No.4/complainant has lodged report with the police, and the police upon inquiry found that no offence is made out. Hence, it is prima facie apparent that respondent No.4 is misusing process of law. Caste certificate submitted by respondent No.4 is not genuine. She does not belong to either SC or ST category. Hence also, the complaint is not maintainable before the Special Judge (Atrocities). Allegation levelled against the petitioner are not specific. In this case, the allegation is that when complainant went to house of non-applicant No.2 where complainant was abused in filthy language, and also by her caste, hence the offence under Atrocities Act would not be made out. Special Judge ought to have called for report from the police but without calling for the report, proceeded with the complaint and issued process which is illegal. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386, Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs. State through standing counsel and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Rattiram and Ors. Vs. State of MP through Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2012 SC 1485.