TALEWAR MURMU, SON OF LATE MANGAL MANJHI, RESIDENT OF HARIYADIH, P.O.KALYANPUR, P.S. BARWADDA, DIST Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.3.2016 passed in Cr. Rev.No.14 of 2016 by which learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhanbad has dismissed the revision application and has uphold the order dated 14.1.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.2445 of 2015 whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3(1)(i)(iv)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the complainant which was registered as C.P. Case No.2445 of 2015 against this petitioner for allegedly committing an offence under Sec. 3(1)(i)(iv)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and thereafter enquiry witnesses were examined. After completion of examination of the enquiry witnesses, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Sections 323, 341, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against these two petitioners but has refused to take cognizance of offence under Sec. 3(1)(i)(iv)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as he did not find any prima facie case. Challenging the order, the complainant preferred criminal revision being Cr. Rev. No. 14 of 2016 which was heard and dismissed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhanbad. The Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honourable Jharkhand High Court in the case Bomshankar Jha & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in [2016 (1) JBCJ 223] wherein it has been held that in a case of refusal by Officer-in-Charge of police station to record the information, informant is required to send substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who after investigation either by himself or by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall direct the Officer-in-Charge to institute a police case. It has also been held that Rule 5(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is mandatory and violation thereof will vitiate the case of prosecution. The revisional court basing on the said judgment has held that the trial court was correct in not taking cognizance under Sec. 3(1)(i) (iv)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid finding of the revisional court is absolutely bad. He submits that though the revisional court has relied upon the judgment in the case of Bomshankar Jha & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors (supra), yet there are other decision of this Court which runs contrary. He submits that there would be no illegality in taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3(1)(i)(iv)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on complaint, even if police authorities have refused to register an FIR.