ORDER :

The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A4 order by which the District & Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Cognizance of the said offences was taken and summons issued to the petitioner based on a protest complaint filed by the third respondent. The essential facts are as under;

2. In the year 2010, the petitioner purchased land comprised in Re-survey Nos.17/11, 18/7/1 in Block No.9 of Pazhavangadi village as per document No.2065 of 2010. The petitioner and family are residing in that property. When the petitioner purchased the property it had no vehicular access. In order to facilitate easy access, the petitioner purchased the property having an extent of 40 sq.meters in Re-survey No.18/6/4. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed a cartable private road having an approximate length of 70 meters, starting from the Pallippadi-Thalakottupadi Panchayat road and reaching up to the petitioner’s residence. The property lying on the western side of petitioner’s property was owned by one V.T.Varghese. The said person gifted three cents of property each to eight persons belonging to lower strata of the society. The properties thus gifted did not have proper access and thus resulted in a dispute between the petitioner and the assignee regarding the right of way to their property. The dispute led to abuse, intimidation and assault. Consequently, crimes were registered against both parties. One such crime pertains to an incident on 21/10/2021, when the petitioner along with others allegedly humiliated and intimidated the third respondent and others, while they were engaged in improvement works in the property gifted to them by V.T.Varghese. Based on the third respondent’s complaint regarding the incident, the Ranni police registered crime No.1308/2021 for offences under Sections 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. The police after investigation filed Annexure A2 final report in that crime, finding that the offences under the SC & ST (PoA) Act are not sustainable. Therefore, the jurisdictional Magistrate was requested to close the proceedings, since the offences under IPC were non cognizable and hence not possible for the police to investigate directly. On receipt of notice in the closure report, the third respondent filed Annexure A3 protest complaint. Therein, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and dismissing the complaint as regards respondents 2 to 6 therein. Aggrieved, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

3. Adv.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below had committed grave illegality in taking cognizance of the offences, despite the police have conducted detailed investigation and filed a refer report. The learned Sessions Judge failed to ascertain and satisfy himself whether the essential ingredients for attracting the offences are made out in the complaint. Further, the fact that the police had referred the earlier complaint finding the allegation to be unsustainable was also not taken into account. The non application of mind is clear from the cryptic manner in which cognizance was taken. Referring to the decision in Lalankumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2022 SC 5151), it is contended that the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality and the court is required to apply its mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion should be reflected in the order itself.

4. Adv.V.Sethunath, learned Counsel for the third respondent pointed out the limited scope for interference in an order taking cognizance by exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that Annexure A2 refer report was filed on the premise that the th