MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure P-1 embodies a private complaint instituted before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. The aforesaid complaint was instituted on 12.08.2009 also in respect of the offences constituted in the private complaint besides subsequent thereto, an F.I.R. was lodged on 27.08.2009 with the Police Station concerned. The Investigating Officer concerned, who, held investigation(s) with respect to the F.I.R, submitted his report, cast under the provisions of 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Magistrate, wherein he made echoings in respect of, no, offence being made out against the accused. The complainant was aggrieved by the proposal(s) carried in the apposite report filed before the trial Magistrate, hence she preferred objection thereto. As apparent on a reading, of, annexure P-6, the learned Magistrate rejected the proposal made, for closure of case, by the Investigating Officer rather she accepted the objections in respect thereto reared by the complainant. Also on 16/7/2013 she proceeded, to, order for the Investigating Officer holding further investigation(s). The fate of further investigation(s), was, of the Investigating Officer, again submitting his report before the learned trial Magistrate, with echoings therein of, no, case being made out against the accused persons, whereafter the learned Magistrate without pronouncing any affirmative order thereon nor upon the objection(s) in respect thereto as reared by the complainant, rather proceeded to pronounce an order whereby the complainant was permitted to examine her preliminary evidence upon the private complainant. The learned Magistrate in proceeding, to entertain a private complaint in respect of offences exclusively triable by the designated Special Court besides her taking preliminary evidence thereon, has apparently taken an invalid cognizance upon the apposite private complaint, given cognizance thereof visibly infracting the mandate of the apposite provisions borne in Section 190 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) Especially when the pre-requisite statutory sine qua non for her(s) taking a valid cognizance upon the private complaint, was, comprised in hers holding jurisdiction, by eliciting preliminary evidence thereon to hence inquire into the truth of the allegations constituted therein against the accused, apt statutory jurisdiction whereof would ensue vis -vis the Magistrate concerned only upon his/her holding jurisdictional competence, to try the offences embodied therein. Contrarily for reasons assigned hereinafter, hers, being barred by the apposite provisions engrafted in the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities ) Act, to hold trial of any offences borne therein besides when in respect of commission whereof, a narrative occurs in the private complaint, thereupon rendered her taking cognizance upon the private complaint to be jurisdictionally void.

(3.) Reiteratedly hence also she has infracted the mandate of the provisions borne in Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-