JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the proceedings of Bantra Police Station Case No.55 of 2021 dated 07.03.2021 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. On the basis of letter of complaint addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Bantra Police Station by one Subhajit Talai, the instant case being Bantra Police Station Case No.55 of 2021 dated 07.03.2021 was registered for investigation.

3. The allegations made in the letter of complaint were to the effect that the complainant’s aunt (father’s elder brother’s wife) Mrs. Nivedita Talai goes to the red light area and is involved in flesh trade. The complainant and his father Arup Talai protested against such acts and for the said reasons on 07.03.2021 at about 5.00 p.m., Nivedita assaulted his father with fist and blows and with wooden stick. When Nivedita was beating his father, complainant recorded the same in his mobile camera. Thereafter, when the complainant and his father were passing through Parboti Cinema Hall at about 7.45 p.m., they saw Nivedita Talai and Ramakant Surelia were sitting there and they started hurling abusive language towards them stating that as they belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community they and their family have no right to stay in the family and they should go and live in the jungle, the said abuse was followed by further scurrilous, vulgar and foul aspersions. The complainant, therefore, requested the police authorities to take steps against Mrs. Nivedita Talai and Ramakant Surelia.

4. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner was the widow of the complainant’s uncle and because of a long sanding dispute relating to the property/building wherein they were residing jointly, the parties are at loggerhead and many complaints have been filed before the Police Station by either of the parties over issues relating to property dispute. In fact, the present petitioner (Nivedita Talai) complained against Subhajit Talai and his father Arup Talai which were registered as GDE No.998 dated 18.08.2017, GDE No.1143 dated 19.03.2019, GDE No.1299 dated 23.12.2020 and lastly as Bantra Police Station Case No.99 of 2021 dated 03.05.2021 under Sections 448/323/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been reiterated that after demise of the husband of the petitioner, the complainant and his father were trying to oust her along with her children from the joint property and are creating immense mental pressure.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner emphasised that the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been invoked with an ulterior object of foisting such a criminal case where the petitioner may not be released on bail, she may be detained in prison as she did not belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community by birth although she was married to the uncle of the complainant. Learned senior advocate questions the authority of the investigating officer in view of Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. It has also been submitted that in this case that during pendency of the revisional application, the investigating agency submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Attention of the Court was drawn to Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as follows:

“3. Punishment for offences of atrocities-

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, –

(x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by memb