Back
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Banwari Lal Gurjar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER
1. Present appeal is preferred under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act aggrieved from order dated 11.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Sawaimadhopur whereby learned trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance against the appellants under Sections 379 and 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. Succinctly stated, on the basis of an incident allegedly on 24.03.2019, an FIR No. 84/2019 was lodged by the complainant respondent, Hansraj Meena whereby accused along with other person and two women of stealing his crops and when contacted by him, accused had used casteist slurs to humiliate him. Investigation was conducted but a negative FR was filed aggrieved from which the complainant filed a protest petition, whereby, learned trial court proceeded to take cognizance against the appellants under Sections 379 and 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of SCT/ST (POA) Act. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that an FIR was registered with unexplained delay by complainant on false ground and police has submitted a negative FR for closure of the case but learned trial court had failed
Cognizance under the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained if the informant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or if the involvement is merely circumstantial related to civil disputes.
The court reaffirmed that a cognizance order can be quashed if it lacks substantial basis and if allegations raised do not prima facie constitute an offence, highlighting the misuse of protective leg....
The court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of the SC/ST (POA) Act, ruling that allegations lacking credible evidence can lead to quashing of proceedings.
A prima facie case must be established at the cognizance stage, particularly under the SC/ST Act, focusing on whether allegations, even if taken at face value, constitute an offense.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for immediate F.I.R. registration, the significance of reliable evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Cognizance orders must be supported by clear reasoning when differing from the investigative officer's findings, or they risk being deemed nullities.
The trial court must provide reasons for differing from the investigating officer's findings; failure to do so renders the cognizance order null and void.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
