(1.) By way of filing the instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the order dtd. 21/2/2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Case and Additional District & Session Judge, Bikaner in Final Report CIS No.63/2020 (F.I.R. No.269/2015, Police Station JNVC, Bikaner) whereby the learned trial Court allowed the protest petition filed by the complainant-respondent, took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner for offence under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Shri S.S. Ladrecha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a false case has been foisted against the appellants with a view to spite and harass them. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the Police and thereafter, a negative final report got submitted in which several reasons were assigned by the Investigating Officer. However, learned Court below has not discussed the grounds on which negative final report was submitted. He further submits that it is well-nigh settled that when a negative final report is submitted and protest is made at the behest of the complainant, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate/ trial Judge to consider/discuss the grounds enumerated in the final report and the disagreement with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer has to be mentioned in clear terms in the order before taking congnizance of the offence.
(2.) Having not done so, the learned Court below has committed a grave error of law. It is further submitted that there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the appellant knew the caste of the victim and this act was done intentionally to humiliate and intimidate the victim. In absence of the intent or the ingredients which are essential to constitute an offence, the order of taking cognizance is bad in law and the same may be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Per contra, Shri Gourav Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, made protest to the submissions made at the instance of the appellant while contending that the order impugned is a reasoned and speaking order which requires no interference of this Court by exercising appellate jurisdiction.