MATHURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Patan P.S. Case No. 16 of 1997 corresponding to G.R.No. 124 of 1997 relating to SC/ST No. 19 of 1997 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 341, 323, 342, 504, 379, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act).

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the prosecution case is that one Bhukhli Devi wife of Santu Bhuinya and Nirmala Devi wife of Jai Prakash Ram had gone defecate near a Government Pond early in the morning at 6 a.m. Shortly thereafter the petitioners came there and abused them and also reprimanded them for having come near the Pond. There is also an allegation that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 took away the golden chain from the person of Nirmala Devi. They had earlier abused and assaulted the female folk and also there is an allegation of outrage modesty. Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged against the accused/petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument at this stage that Ss. 3/4 of the Act will not apply in this case as the mandatory provision under R. 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has not been complied with which apparently says that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is also enunciated that the Investigating Officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police to the State Government. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this mandatory provision has not been complied with as regards to the offence under Ss. 3/4 of the Act. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel in this respect that it is only the Deputy Superintendent of Police who can investigate into the case is regards the offence made out under Ss. 3/4 of the Act. On this score, the offence under Ss. 3/4 of the Act is vitiated as the Police Officer who investigated the case has no jurisdiction to entertain the case under the said Act.