The court emphasized the importance of the police's final report and the jurisdiction of the trial court in determining the nature of the dispute under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Pali in F.R. No. 25/2014, whereby the protest petition filed by complainant (deceased Vagaram) - whose legal representatives are the present appellants - was dismissed, and the negative final report submitted by the police was accepted.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the private respondents illegally entered the property of the appellants, by breaking the wall of their residential house with the intention to dispossess them, and in doing so, also gave beating to the appellants and their family with sticks, and also outraged the modesty of the wife of Late Vagaram (complainant), and despite an F.I.R. having been registered for the offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the concerned Police authorities filed a negative Final Report, stating absence of any injury report and that there were no witnesses, except the complainant himself. And that, despite the complainant (Vagaram) having passed away, his legal representatives (the present appellants) being involved in the tussle that ensued, are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned court below.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his submissions, places reliance on the following case laws:-

4.1 Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 121 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held asunder:-

"8. On a consideration of the matter, we find the grievance of the appellants to be well-founded. The High Court has failed to give due consideration to the fact that the investigation of the case had been handed over to the C.I.D. because of unsatisfactory investigation by the authorities of Todabhim Police Station. As such the C.I.D. was under an obligation to examine once again the witnesses already examined and to examine other persons whom the original investigating agency ought to have examined but had failed to examine. In the very nature of things, a fuller and effective investigation by the C.I.D. is bound to bring out several materials not discovered or recorded by the first investigating agency. As to how much acceptance has to be given to the investigation done by the C.I.D. and the statements of witnesses recorded by its officers is a matter which can be determined only after the trial is held and the witnesses and the investigating officer adduce their evidence on oath. As regards the non-mention of the date of recording of the statement of Sravan Lal, a finding can be rendered on the omission only after the C.I.D. offices who recorded the statement is given opportunity to explain the reason for the omission. In so far as the High Court's view that "in the interest of justice, it is the duty of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to go into the merits of the evidence and appreciate correctly the documents and the statements filed by the police", we may only refer to Mohd. Akbar Dar and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. 1981 Suppl. SCC 80 where it has been pointed out that at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by court is not required."

4.2 Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala & Ors. 1978 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held asunder:-

"In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalai and Ors. [1976] Supp. S.C.R. 123 this Court while laying down the categories of the cases in which an order of a Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed observed:

It is well settled by a long catena of decisions of this Court that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in suppor