KANAK LATA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 22nd March, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby respondents No. 2-10 herein, who were charge-sheeted by the police for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(x), (xi) & (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act of 1989') and Sections 323/ 341/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), were discharged in respect of the offence under the Act of 1989 while in respect of the IPC offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons the case was remanded back to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for consideration since all those offences were triable by the Court of a Magistrate.

(2.) The relevant portions from the impugned order where the allegations which were levelled against the respondents 2-10 in the FIR and then in the charge-sheet submitted in Court have been noticed as well as the observations of the learned trial Judge are being re-produced below :-

(3.) From these extracts from the impugned order and other documents placed on record by the petitioner-complainant which were stated to be a part of the trial Court's record, it becomes evident that some incident took palce in the night of 3rd May, 2008 between the petitioner-tenant and her landlord, accused Om Prakash Grover, and when the police had reached the spot to make enquiries in respect of DDs No. 60-B and 61-B both the sides had refused to make any formal complaints against each other though later on next day FIRs were got registered by both the sides against each other. The police officer who had been entrusted the matter had on return from the spot simply mentioned in his report on 4th May, 2008 vide DD No. 22-A, upon which the trial Judge has placed strong reliance in the impugned order and considered the same to be a first information report which actually is not so, about the refusal of both the parties to make their statements about what all had happened that day. Then on 4th May, 2008 the petitioner-complainant had gone to the police station and lodged an FIR against respondents 2-10 herein for the commission of offences which have already been noticed.