GODEN PRASAD Vs. MANUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission.

(2.) THIS revision petition has not been filed against any order but the petitioners are anticipating their arrest by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bina in Criminal Case No. 896/2000 which is a private complaint and has been filed before it by respondent Manua purporting to be under Section 3/4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') and also under Sections 500, 294, 506-B and 420, IPC It is said that Magistrate framed charges against present petitioners under Sections 504, 506 (A) and 500, IPC. Since the complaint has also been filed in order to attract the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, according to learned Counsel, the learned Magistrate is going to commit the case to "special Court" specified under the Act after taking into custody the petitioners. Hence this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) THE contention of Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure which shall be adopted by Magistrate to commit the case to "special Court" constituted under the Act is wholly unwarranted under the law. According to the learned Counsel, indeed the complainant should have filed private complaint directly to the "special Court" constituted under the Act. In support of his contention, he has placed heavy reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anand Swaroop v. Ramratan Jatav and Ors. , 1996 JLJ 8. The learned Counsel has further placed reliance on another decision of this Court decided by Single Bench in the case of J. N. Fuloria v. Smt. Benibai, 2000 (2) M. P. H. T. 152 = 2000 (1) MPLJ 459, wherein learned Single Judge followed the dictum of Full Bench decision of Anand Swaroop (supra ). On these premised reasons, it has been argued by Shri Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner that revision be allowed.