JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal, appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the order impugned dated 07.02.2019’ passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal FR No. 188/2017 whereby the protest petition filed by the appellant was rejected and accepted the final report filed by the police official concerned.

2. Brief facts of the case as per appellant are that on 04.05.2017, when he reached to Patta campaign and inquired regarding Patta for construction of his house, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 started abusing him indicating his caste and started beating him; when Nand Lal, Raghuveer Singh and Jaskaran Singh intervened, they were also beaten by the respondents. The respondents No. 2 to 5 threatened the appellant to kill him if he ever visited the Panchayat. As per him, the above incident was happened due to - previous animosity between them as previously the appellant had lodged a complaint against the respondents No. 2 and 3 disclosing various financial scandals committed by them. In the garb of this, respondents No. 2 to 5 made an assault over the appellant when he proceeded for getting his patta. On the basis of this on 04.05.2017, appellant lodged an FIR No. 87/2017 at the Police Station Sameja Kothi District Sri Ganganagar against the respondents No. 2 to 5 under Sections 323 , 342 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the appellant was examined by the Medical Officer, as per in the injury report, nature of injuries were opined to be simple and caused by blunt weapon. 23 witnesses were examined under Section 161 Cr. P.C. In pursuant thereto, on 30.06.2017, police filed final report No. 124/2017 with a report that thus case is made out against the respondents No. 2 to 5.

3. Aggrieved against the said final report, the appellant filed protest petition before the learned trial Court on 23.12.2017. Thereafter, he examined himself as AW-1 and Nand Lai, Raghuveer Singh, Om Prakash and Jaskaran Singh were examined, as AW-2 to AW-5. The learned trial Court vide order dated 7.2.2019 dismissed the protest petition filed by the appellant and accept the final report filed by the official concerned. Hence, this criminal appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that along with protest petition, besides the petitioner, four other witnesses namely Raghuveer, Jaskaran, Om Prakash and Nand Lal were examined by the trial Court as A.W.2 to A.W.5 under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P.C. AIL of them consistently stated in their statement that respondents hurling abuses to appellant and when these witnesses tried to intervene and mitigate them, they made an assault over them, therefore, it seems that the learned Court below has appreciated the evidence in the manner as if he was deciding the, trial on merits. It is well neigh settled that at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence of issuance of process only existence of prima facie case is required to be seen. The word “cognizance” simply means application of judicial mind to proceed further in the matter. Thus, he prayed that order passed by the learned trial. Court may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The threadbare discussion or meticulous examination of the material available on record is not required to be done at the stage of hearing on the point of cognizance. After overall consideration of the material available on record, it is felt appropriate that the learned trial Court has put too much emphasis on the credibility of the witnesses which in my view was not required to be done at this juncture, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set