NAND KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 4.4.98 of the Judge of the Special Court at Giridih constituted under section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) declining to discharge the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Giridih town P.S. Case no. 304/95 corresponding to 2291/95.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, on 8.12.95 opp. party no. 2 Ram Prasad Rajak presented a written complaint before the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge of Giridih who was appointed Judge of the Special Court (SCST Act), alleging commission of offence under sections 144, 342, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, to be stated as IPC) and section 3(1) (ii) (v) (viii) (x) and (xv) of the Act by petitioners other than petitioner no. 6 Bhola Shankar Prasad. The complaint was registered in the file of the Special Court as complaint case no. 7/95. However, instead of proceeding with the complaint by taking cognizance on the basis thereof, learned Special Judge forwarded the complaint to the Officer -in -charge of Giridih town police station to register a case/FIR and investigate and submit FF. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer -in -charge of Giridih town police station registered a case against the petitioners other than petitioner no. 6 under the sections mentioned in the petition of complaint as referred to above, and entrusted the investigation to one B. N. Tiwary, an Assistant Sub -Inspector posted at the police station. Sri Tiwary investigated into the allegation. In the meantime, the complicity of petitioner no. 6 was also disclosed by opp. party no. 2 by filing a separate petition to the local Deputy Superintendent of Police. On conclusion of investigation, the police submitted final form (chargesheet) against the petitioners disclosing commission of offence by them under sections 144, 342, 452 and 506 IPC and sections 3 and 5 of the Act. It is stated that when final form was submitted before the Special Judge, he declined to act on the basis thereof observing that he had no jurisdiction. Consequently, the final form was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Giridih, who took cognizance of the said offences on 13.12.96 and thereafter made a written request to the District and Sessions Judge of Giridih to transfer the case to the Special Judge for disposal in view of the provisions of the Act requiring trial of offences thereunder by a Special Court constituted thereunder. Consequently, the District and Sessions Judge of Giridih transferred the case to the Special Judge of Giridih by his order no. 182 dt. 16.12.96.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it shall be meet to state the allegations made in the petition of complaint which formed part of the FIR which is Annexure 2. It has been stated in the complaint petition that the accused persons mentioned therein had forcibly occupied a part of building of the complainant (opp. party no. 2) who is a washerman by caste and member of a scheduled caste. In 1984, in presence of respectable local panchas, petitioner no. 1 acting on behalf of other petitioners entered into an agreement that they shall vacate the premises in their occupation within a period of 1 1/2 years, but they went back on their promise. When they declined to vacate the premises, opp. party no. 2 instituted an eviction suit against them. In course of the trial, the petitioners and their witnesses adduced altogether false evidence. However, on 11.9.95 he succeeded in getting a favourable decree from the court of the 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge in Eviction Appeal no. 6/90. The appellate court had directed the petitioners to vacate the suit premises within one month. But, according to the averments made in the petition of complaint, when the complainant reached home after the pronouncement of the judgment by the appellate court, all the accused persons surrounded him and threatened him that he will not be able to get the premises vacated. Instead of vacating the premises in terms of the order of the appellate court, petitioner no. 1 and others took the matter to this court. Consequently, on 6.12.95, opp. party no. 2 came to Ranchi for engaging a counsel for his defence and went back home. However, on 8.12.95 at about 11 a.m. all the petitioners, except petitioner no. 6, entered inside his laundry shop situated in the same building, surrounded and abused him. They called him by his caste name 'dhobi ' and threatened to ruin him. They also became ready to assault him, but witnesses intervened and rescued him. As I have already stated, at a later stage in course of investigation, a written information was given by opp. party no. 2 to the local Deputy Superintendent of Police stating that petitioner no. 6 had also participated in both the occurrence which had taken place on 11.9.95 and 8.12.95.