Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant as also Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking the following reliefs:—

“i. For quashing of FIR bearing Sirdala P.S. Case No. 217/2015 dated 12/11/15;

ii. For deleting the acquisition U/Ss 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act as there is no any specific allegation attributed with regard to the special act against the present petitioner;

iii. For staying the no-coercive steps being taken/to be taken against the present petitioner;

iv. For any other relief/reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Brief facts of the case

3. In Sirdala P.S. Case No. 217/2015 registered on 12.11.2015 at about 2:45 P.M. the allegation is that on 11.11.2015 at about 12:00 P.M. in the night, the informant had gone to search his deceased nephew Rakesh Kumar @ Pappu Chaudhary and at Chamotha Hat, some children were said to have been playing gambling on the occasion of Dipawali. It is alleged that during this period, the SAP Police Force caught hold of the informant from behind and allegedly removed Rs. 1200/- from his pocket as also abused the informant and assaulted him. The informant claims that he can identify the assailants by face. He has identified the said person as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Subhash Yadav who is alleged to have been with SAP force. It is alleged that when the informant started crying, all children playing there started fleeing away. Allegation is also that all the police force had consumed wine and had started firing and in this firing the nephew of the informant who was playing there received gun shot injury and died at the alleged place of occurrence. One Upendra Choudhary and another Gorelal Chaudhary had received gun shot injuries and they were referred for treatment to a Private Hospital at Patna.

Counter version

4. Contrary to the version of the informant, the ‘SAP Jawans’ who were led by A.S.I. Subhash Yadav, have a different story. A.S.I. Subhash Yadav has lodged a complaint with Sirdala Police Station giving rise to Sirdala P.S. Case No. 216/2015 under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/325/307/353 /337/160/290/332/427 of the Indian Penal Code against 150-200 unknown persons for gambling, fighting among them, creating nuisance and pelting stones/bricks, breaking the glass of the police vehicle, snatching of rifles, scuffling and beating Mr. Ghanshyam Kumar (the petitioner). In this F.I.R., the allegation against the unknown person is to attempt of killing the police official in which three rounds firing took placing mistakenly. Copies of both the F.I.Rs. have been enclosed as Annexure ‘1’ and ‘2’ respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the version of two F.I.Rs. are completely contradictory. The investigating officer was supposed to investigate both the cases simultaneously to find out the truth but in this case while the investigation of Sirdala P.S. Case No. 216/2015 has been kept pending till date, in Sirdala P.S. Case No. 217/2015, police has hurriedly submitted a charge-sheet under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”).

6. The said charge-sheet has been sought to be challenged by filing one Interlocutory Application No. 01/2022 which has been allowed and the statements made in the interlocutory application with the reliefs prayed therein have been treated as part and parcel of the writ application.

7. This Court has given opportunity to the informant to respond to the writ application and the interlocutory application and the informant has filed counter affidavit. Similarly, the official respondents/State has also filed a counter affidavit enclosing therewith the copy of the case diary.

Submissions

8. In course of argument, learned counsel for the State submits t