RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders dated 16th March, 96 as well as the order dated 26th June, 96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Doongargarh in criminal case No. 116/96. By the order dated 16th March, 96, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(iv) and (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against the accused Rameshwarnath, Deepanath, Chandunath and Sawannath, residents of village Purnasar, tehsil Doongargarh. By the same order, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S. 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against the police officers (1) the then Superintendent of Police, Churu and (2) the then Circle Officer (Shri Rampal the petitioner), who investigated the case and after investigation submitted the final report in the case. By order dated 26th June, 96, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application by which the petitioner had raised certain objections against taking of cognizance of the offence under S. 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and had requested that the proceedings against him should be dropped.

(2.) At the outset, it may be pointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not even cared to mention the names of the police officers against whom he directed the issue of process by his order dated 16th March, 96. Similarly, in the second order dated 26th June, 96, the name of the petitioner, who had raised objections against the taking of cognizance has not even been mentioned. It is necessary that the subordinate Courts while disposing of applications filed by parties must indicate on whose behalf the application had been filed. The name of the applicant must be disclosed in the order passed by the subordinate Courts, failing to do so, would be regarded as a neglect of duty. Similarly, it is necessary that when processes are issued against any person or persons under S. 204, Cr.P.C., the name as well as sufficient particulars of the accused, who is to be proceeded against must be disclosed in the order so that no innocent person is arrested on account of a mistake which is likely to be committed if the names of the accused persons are not given in the order. Brevity to the extent of omitting the names of the parties, whose rights are affected by the order of the Courts, is neither permitted by law nor it is permitted by practice. Neglect on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate in this behalf is serious and this Court expects that such neglect will not be committed by the subordinate Judicial Officers in future.

(3.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be summarised as below :-