Point of Law: A prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Act, 1989 and there is no provision of leading pre charge evidence before court of Sessions, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Special Judge while framing charge against accused, which now otherwise is required to be proved in accordance with law by prosecution, by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

ORDER :

By way of instant Cr. Revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-9), whereby learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P. after having found sufficient reasons to frame charge against the petitioner for his having committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, framed charges under aforesaid sections against the petitioner herein and assigned the case for adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, H.P.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant Praveen Kumari (since deceased) filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., stating therein that she had filed a complaint before learned District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., which was sent to police station for investigation. On the direction issued by learned District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.05.2016, was registered against the petitioner for his having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC. Complainant alleged that the aforesaid case is pending adjudication with the SHO of Police Station, Sadar, Mandi, H.P., but some of allegations made by her in the complaint with regard to atrocities committed upon her on account of her being scheduled caste at the hands of petitioner are not being taken cognizance, as a consequence of which, prejudice is being caused to her. Complainant alleged that she belongs to scheduled caste and accused, who belongs to higher caste, used derogatory and vulgar language against her and also obstructed her path. She alleged that the alleged incident took place on 08.07.2016 and was witnessed by the passer-by. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording statements of complainant and eye witnesses found prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence alleged to have been committed by him under various provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, but since court of Sessions, has been designated as a Special Court and has power to directly take cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid Act, complaint was returned to the complainant with the direction to present the same before the competent court of law. In that background, complaint, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged before Special Judge, Mandi, H.P., who after having recorded statements of complainant and the eye witnesses, proceeded to frame charge against petitioner for his having committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the meantime, petitioner approached this Court by way of petition bearing Cr.MMO No 259 of 2017, tilted Gaurav Oberoi vs. State of H.P., praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.05.2016, registered against him at the behest of complainant Praveen Kumari. This Court vide order dated 25th August, 2021, passed in Cr.MMO No. 259 of 2017, titled Gaurav Oberoi vs. State of H.P., allowed the petition and quashed FIR, as detailed hereinabove registered against the petitioner as well as summoning order dated 24.04.2017. After passing of aforesaid order dated 25th August, 2017, passed by this Court, petitioner set up a case before Special Judge, Mandi, in a case registered against him under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since, main FIR, i.e. FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.05.2016, having been filed by the complainant Praveen Kumari, has been quashed, subsequent case registered against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not maintainable, but learned Special Judge, Mandi, while negating aforesaid plea made on behalf of the petitioner, proceeded to frame charge, as has been noticed hereinabove, against hi