Honble SINGH, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

(2). This petition under Sec. 482, CrPC is directed against the order dated 11th June, 1998 passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma, RJS, Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Landnu, in complaint case no. 5/98 Narain Ram vs. Bhanwar Singh. By the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate has not discussed the evidence nor given any cogent reason for coming to the conclusion that there were grounds for taking cognizance of the offence under Sec.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(4). It appears that Narain Ram lodged a First Information Report No.212 on 22nd August, 1996 at Police Station Landnu. In the First Information Report, it was alleged by Narain Ram that on the previous day at about 10-11AM he was going to- wards the bus stand. In `guwad he was stopped by Bhanwar Singh and his son Kalu Singh, who abused him and used the words ``dhedh and ``neech for him. It was also alleged in the First Information Report that when the complainant Narain Ram asked Bhanwar Singh and Kalu Singh as to why they were abusing him they caught hold of his collar and inflicted 3-4 blows with fists. He fell down on the ground and was given beating by both and was saved by Shri Hanumana Ram and Ramu Babri. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Narain Ram, Police registered a case under Section 341, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(5). During the investigation, Police examined number of persons including Narain Ram, Hanumana Ram, Ramu Ram, Shamshuddin, Nandlal, Bhilaram, Ajeet Singh, Ghud Singh, Purna Ram, Jasa Ram and Kisna Ram. Medical examination of the complainant was also got done. On conducting the investigation, the Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not made out but the offences under Secs. 341 and 323/34 IPC were made out. Consequently, a charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC was submitted in respect of offences under Secs. 341, 323/34 IPC.

(6). It appears that not being satisfied with the charge sheet filed by the Police, the complainant submitted a complaint in writing on 6.4.1998 in the court of learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Landnu. In the complaint, it was alleged that besides offences under Sections 323/34 and 341 IPC, offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also made out. On submission of the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 6.4.1998 directed the complaint to be put up with the office report. On 11.6.1998, learned Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned Judicial Magistrate further directed that the complaint be annexed with the criminal case instituted on the basis of the police report. This direction was given under Sec.210 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(7). In the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate has referred to state- ments of Narain Ram, Hanumana Ram and Ramu Ram, who were examined under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC but not even a single word has been written in the impugned order to indicate what was stated by the witnesses.

(8). Learned Judicial Magistrate also omitted to mention the facts, which in his opinion constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(9). Learned Judicial Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of the offence under Sec.190 CrPC. The conditions necessary for taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC

Click Here to Read the rest of this document