1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 444 of 2015 by which he has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and summoned the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 to face trial.

2. The petitioner being the informant of the aforesaid Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 444 of 2015 has challenged the impugned order raising contention that though there is overwhelming materials available on record making out an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the police did not conduct investigation in an impartial manner and fair manner and deliberately submitted its report under Section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C. only under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without application of judicial mind mechanically took cognizance of the offences only under the provisions of the penal law for which charge-sheet was submitted. He submitted that it was incumbent upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to have looked into the materials available on record including the injury report of the doctor of the emergency ward of N.M.C.H. before passing the order of cognizance and summoning the accused opposite parties.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contested the matter. He submitted that the investigation was carried out in a fair and impartial manner and, as in course of investigation, it transpired that the injuries were caused not with intention to kill the informant, the Investigating Officer rightly did not submit police report under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the submission made by the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is mechanical has got no substance as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to facts available on record and has passed a just and proper order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Instead of giving any opinion on the submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties, I find that the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 cannot be sustained in law.

6. The Parliament made certain amendments in the Act, vide Amendment Act, 2015, which came into force, with effect from 26.01.2016, vide Gazette Notification, dated 18th January, 2016.

7. The objective of the amendments, so introduced in the existing Act, is to deliver the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes greater justice as well as to provide for enhanced deterrent to the offenders. The Amendment Act, 2015, allowed establishment of Exclusive Special Courts and appointment of Special Public Prosecutor for trial of offences, under the Act, to enable speedy and expeditious disposal of cases.

8. The term "Special Court" has been defined under Section 2(d) and "Exclusive Special Court" has been defined under Section 2(bd) of the Act.

9. Section 14 of the Act prior to its amendment, read as under:-

"14. For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act."

10. Section 14 of the Act has been substituted by the Amendment Act, 2015. The substituted provisions of Section 14 read as under:-

"14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court:-

(1) For the