SMT. MANGI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complainant has filed this revision petition under Sec. 397 read with 401 Crimial P.C. against an order of District and Session Judge, Churu dated 3.3.93 in Sessions case No. 4/90 whereby the Learned Sessions Judge discharged the non petitioners. They were accused of the offence under Sec. 3(1) (iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the Act) and transferred the case to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh for trial under Sec. 228 Crimial P.C.

(2.) The petitioner/complainant submitted a written report to the Station House Officer Police Station, Sujangarh on 23.6.1990 at 8 p.m. in which she alleged that on 23.6.1990 at about 9 a.m. She and her mother-in-law Smt. Singari were in their Dhani which is situated in their field. Suddenly all the accused persons trespassed into the field and shouted "Sale Dhedhon Ko maro" and began to beat her mother-in-law. The complainant came to her rescue but the accused also assaulted her. The accused also dismantled the Jhompra and also removed the bar' and threw all her belongings out of her Jhompra. The accused further destroyed her Bajra crop by rolling tractor over it. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the field was in her possession and cultivation at the relevant time. On this report FIR No.77/90 under Sec. 447, 427, 323, 147, 149 Penal Code and Sec. 3(1) (iv) (v) of the Act was registered against the accused. After investigation the chargesheet was submitted against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offence in the court of Munsif and Judicial in the Sujangarh on 3.8.90 who committed the case to the Court of Session Judge, Churu on the same date. The Learned Sessions Judge, Churu after hearing arguments, vide his order dated 3.3.93, found that no offence under Sec. 3(1) (iv) and (v) of the Act was prima facie made out. He therefore, discharged all the accuseds of the above offence. Since the other remaining offences were triable by the Magistrate of the 1st class the learned Sessions Judge sent the case for trial to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh under Sec. 228 Cr.RC.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PR for the non-petitioners. Learned counsel for the non petitioners has raised a primarily objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that the case was instituted on a Police report, the challan was filed and the case was then committed to the Court of Session. The order discharging her was passed. The revision petition was filed by a private party and she had no locus standi to do so. This point was decided by the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 911 and Narayan Lal Vs. Bhanwar Lal and Ors., reported in Criminal Law Reporter (Raj.) 674 .