JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioners that the Cr. Revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 25.1.2017 passed by the Special Court Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hanumangrah in Criminal original case No.21/2013, allowing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and taking cognizance against the petitioners under section 436, 450 I.P.C. and 3(2)(4), 3(2)(5) S.C.S.T. Act. May kindly be quashed and set aside and the revision petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be allowed in toto;

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by Dr.Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Rahul Rajpurohit appearing on behalf of the appellants, are that an F.I.R. bearing no. 157/2012 was lodged at Police Station Bhirani by complainant Smt. Hemlata against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 3(2)(iii) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, wherein it was alleged that the complainant R/o Ajeetpura, had paid a visit to her son on 29.06.2012 at Sri Ganganagar, and on that night, at about 10:30 – 11 p.m. one Shiv Bhagwan @ Sanuda, along with the present petitioners set her house, situated at Ajeetpura, ablaze. And that, upon investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 436, 450 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (2) (iv) and 3(2) (v) was submitted against Shiv Bhagwan before the Court of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hanumangarh; during the trial of which, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the complainant, on the basis of certain statements made by P.W.- 1 Indersingh and P.W.-3, to array the present petitioners as accused in the ongoing trial in the Criminal Case, bearing No. 21/2013, which came to be allowed by the learned Court; and cognizance was taken against the present petitioners for the aforementioned offences.

2.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned Court below has erred in allowing the application preferred by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that the impugned order suffers on count of the fact that the learned Court below ought to have, with respect to the evidences placed on record before it, satisfied itself to a degree higher than that required at the stage of framing of charge or taking cognizance, but less than that required to fully assess whether the accused would be convicted or acquitted for the offences alleged against them, as the case may be.

2.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the F.I.R., bearing No. 157/2012, in the present case, dated 02.07.2012, was filed after a delay of 4 days, in turn, calling into question the version of the complainant.

2.3 Furthermore, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that owing to the fact that the concerned police authorities after due investigation, did not find the offences to be made out against the present petitioners, did not file charge-sheet against them, but only against the accused-Shiv Bhagwan. And that, the learned Court below ought to have appreciated the same, but instead chose to allow the Section 319 Cr.P.C. application preferred by the complainant, on the basis of the statements of prosecution witnesses already examined by the concerned investigating authorities, without stating any reasons whatsoever for the same.

2.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the chargesheet against the sole accused-Shiv Bhagwan, was accepted by the learned Court below, and nor a protest petition was preferred by the complainant. Furthermore, t