JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by J.M.F.C., Igatpuri on 3rd May, 1997, issuing process against her for commission of offences in context with sections 3(1)(viii), (ix), (x) (xv) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience). The complaint if read as itself shows three allegations made in it, which are:

"(1) That petitioner Alka Misra, told the original complainant Shri J.P. Shoke that there are complaints against him and he should leave Igatpuri.

(2) When he reiterated his request for getting a particular quarter, Mrs. Alka Misra said that she knows her job.

(3) Though Alka Misra has been appointed for taking steps for welfare of members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes but according to the say of Shri J.P. Shoke, she did not take necessary steps as stated by Shri Shoke for getting him a quarter at Kalyan."

2. The said complaint was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C., Igatpuri as per directions given by the Court of Sessions, Nasik. The learned Magistrate after presentation of the complaint in his Court, issued the process against the present petitioner, as mentioned above and that order has been assailed by this writ petition by the petitioner.

3. Shri P.M. Pradhan, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that by virtue of section 14 of the Act the Special Courts have been established for speedy trial of the offences contemplated by provisions of Act and that for each District the Court of Sessions would be the Special Court.

4. It is the submission of Shri Pradhan that while deciding the previous petition bearing No. 256 of 1995 A.D. CRI-No. 9160/1995, the Single Bench of this Court held that the allegations made against the other co-accused in the complaint of respondent No. 1 Shoke were not proved. He confirmed the order, which was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik who returned the complaint to Shri Shoke for filing it in the Court of J.M.F.C., Igatpuri but while passing the order it was declared that the allegations in the complaint made by Shri Shoke respondent No. 1 were not proved, however the learned Judge of the High Court granted him permission to present a fresh petition in the Court. Shri Pradhan submitted that by taking disadvantage of said order of the High Court, Shri Shoke respondent No. 1 filed fresh complaint against all previous accused and added present petitioner as new accused. The learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of said complaint and issued process. He submitted that the said act of the learned Magistrate is contrary to law and therefore the process issued by him against the petitioner needs to be quashed.

5. Shri Saste made his best to justify the order passed by J.M.F.C. Igatpuri issuing process against the petitioner for offences punishable under provisions of section 3(1)(VIII), (IX), (X) (XV) and section 4 of the Act and provisions of section 7(II) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and provisions of sections 114, 166, 167, 145, 53, 177, 178, 200, 217, 218, 500, 505 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

6. While elaborating his submission Shri Pradhan pointed out that revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the said order of issuing the process against the petitioner by J.M.F.C., Igatpuri in the Court of Sessions, Nasik but the same was dismissed on 20th of November, 1997.

7. Except offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) and section 4 of the Act all the allegations made in context with other offences indicated by provisions of the Act and Penal Code are not even prima facie spelled out, if the complaint is read as it is. The allegations made by the complainant in context with offences indicated by provisions of section 3(1)(x) and section 4 of the Act would be relevant for consideration. In this context three allegations have been made by the original complainant/respondent Shri J.P., Shoke and they can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document