(1.) The sole Petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 8-9-1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in G. R. Case No. 136 of 1998 arising out of Bahadurganj P. S. Case No. 15 of 1998. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 384 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as S. C./S.T. Act).
(2.) Short fact of the case is that earlier a complaint was filed by the informant/complainant-Babu Lal Pandiya in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj vide Complaint Case No. 32 of 1998 which was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter, first information report vide Bahadurganj P. S. Case No. 15 of 1998 was registered. After investigating the case, the police submitted charge sheet and, thereafter, learned Magistrate by order dated 8-9-1999 has passed order of cognizance and summoned the Petitioner to face trial. Since in the present case main ground has been taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that order of cognizance is bad in law due to the reason that the case was investigated by the Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police which was contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 7 of S. C./S. T. Rules, 1995 and Section 9 of the S. C./S. T. Act 1989, it is not necessary to give in detail the accusations made against this Petitioner.
(3.) It was not submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as per the provisions of S. C./S. T. Act and Rules, no Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was authorized either to register a case or investigate a case for the offence under the S. C./S. T. Act. It was submitted that in the present case Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was the investigating officer and, as such, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of investigating, officer it has been argued that the entire proceeding against the Petitioner is vitiated and, as such, order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his argument has referred to a judgment reported in (State of Karnataka v. Smt. D. Jayamma). It was submitted that in the said case prosecution was set aside on the ground that the case under S. C./S.T. Act was investigated by an Inspector of Police and not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as prescribed under the Rules. Similar view was taken in another case reported in (Chandrashekhar Pani and Ors. v. State of Orissa). Learned Counsel has also relied on a judgment of this Court (Mohan Choudhary v. The State of Bihar and Ors.). In all the cases it has been argued that the prosecution was set aside on the ground that the case was not investigated by an Officer as required by law i.e. Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In all such cases Investigating Officer was either Sub-Inspector of Police or Inspector of Police or even Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and as such on the strength of the aforesaid judgments it has been argued that in the present case also, since investigation was conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, order of cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be set aside.