TAJ MOHAMMED RATHORE S/O SHRI IMAMADEEN RATHORE, BY CASTE MUSALMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUDADI, POLICE STATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant criminal misc. petition, accused petitioner has assailed impugned order dated 21.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby learned Court below has declined to interfere with the order of cognizance dated 01.07.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that respondent-complainant lodged FIR against petitioner and two others attributing offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act'). At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Tehsildar, Sangaria. The FIR was lodged by the complainant in the capacity of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nukera, Tehsil Sangaria. Precisely, in the FIR, the complainant has alleged that she hosted a lunch at her residence and invited petitioner and other accused persons but her invitation was declined by them by citing the reason that she belongs to a lower caste. It is in that backdrop, the complainant has averred that the petitioner and others have committed offence punishable under the aforesaid Section. The Investigating Agency proceeded with investigation in the matter and upon conclusion of the investigation did not find any incriminating evidence against the petitioner and others and that eventually facilitated filing of negative final report in the matter before the learned trial Court. Feeling dismayed with the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency, respondent-complaint lodged a protest petition by invoking Sec. 196 Crimial P.C. The protest petition was considered by the learned trial Court and pursuant to statements of complainant were recorded under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C. followed by statements of the witnesses under Sec. 202 Crimial P.C. during inquiry. Finally, learned trial Court, on meaningful consideration of the materials available on record, took cognizance against petitioner and others for the offence under the Act. Feeling disgruntled with the order of cognizance, petitioner laid a revision petition before learned Court below and the learned Court below, after examining the matter, declined to interfere with the order of cognisance by the order impugned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kumbhat, has strenuously urged that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has completely eschewed the evidence which was collected during investigation and order of cognizance has been passed mechanically. Learned counsel would contend that negative final report was submitted by Police after thorough investigation, wherein the Police has not found any incriminating evidence against petitioner and others for constituting the aforesaid offence under the Act but that part was completely overlooked by the learned trial Court, inasmuch as, there is no proper discussion regarding the reasoning for submission of negative final report in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that even if the averments of the FIR are examined objectively then too no offence as such under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out against the petitioner which was very relevant factor and that has not been taken note of by the learned trial Court. Mr. Kumbhat has also urged that the learned revisional Court has also not examined the order of cognizance in the backdrop of provisions contained under Sec. 397 Crimial P.C., inasmuch as, the learned revisional Court has not examined correctness, legality and propriety of the order of cognizance passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel has also urged that revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397 Crimial P.C. is not akin to revisional jurisdiction of civil Court and Court is required to examine the matter threadbare before recording its satisfaction about its legality and propriety which is not discernible from the impugned order. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that there is no allegation in the FIR that any act or omission which is attributed to the accused-petitioner was within public view, which is pre-requisite for constituting the aforesaid offence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decisions of this Court on following legal precedents:-