PADMABATI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State appearing for opp. party No. 1 and learned counsel for opp. party Nos. 2 to 13. In this revision, petitioner has assailed legality of impugned order dated 30.1.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar in ICC No. 73 of 2011.

(2.) Petitioner is the complainant and opp. party Nos. 2 to 13 are the accused persons before the Court below. Grievance of the petitioner is that though allegation of commission of offence under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act has also been made in the case, by the impugned order the Court below took cognizance of offences under Sections 341/294/323/34 of the IPC only.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that not only in the complaint petition made allegation of commission of offence under Section 3 of the commission of offence under Section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act against the accused persons but also in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. it was alleged that petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste whereas the accused persons do not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. However, learned Court below has failed to take note of such allegation made in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.