Criminal revision maintainable against charge framing order under SC/ST Act as intermediate; Sections 3(1)(f),(g) inapplicable without Scheduled Caste complainant's proven land ownership/possession, binding from prior civil judgments.

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to order dated 12.9.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Session Trial No. 12/24, whereby court below proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners in case FIR No. 97/23 dated 1.7.2023 under Sections 3 (1) (f) and 3 (1) (g) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (in short “SCST Act”)

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners is that bare perusal of FIR clearly reveals that no case much less case under Sections 3 (1) (f) and 3 (1) (g) of the SCST Act, is made out against the petitioners. If it is so, there was otherwise no occasion for the learned court below to frame charges against the petitioners under the afore provisions of law. Mr. Sharma, while making this court peruse pleadings as well as other documents adduced on record vehemently argued that complainant, at whose instance FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged, was not able to prove till Hon’ble Apex Court his ownership qua the land in question. While referring to Sections 3 (1) (f) and 3 (1) (g), Mr. Sharma, contended that person belonging to scheduled caste community can invoke afore provision of law only in the event of his being owner or in possession of the land from which he is seeking removal of a person of higher caste. He further submitted that since complainant was unable to prove before the civil court that he is owner or in possession of the land coupled with the fact that judgments passed by the competent court of law in that regard were made available to the court below at the time of framing of charges, impugned order thereby framing charge against the petitioners needs to be interfered with.

3. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent­State and Mr. N.K. Tomar, learned counsel representing the complainant, supported the impugned order framing charge. Above named counsel vehemently argued that police after having perused the sale deed qua the suit land, wherein factum of complainant’s ownership qua the land in question stands duly recorded, rightly presented challan in the competent court of law under Sections 3 (1) (f) and 3 (1) (g) of the Act. They further submitted that during investigation, police also collected revenue record i.e. jamabandi, suggestive of the fact that name of the complainant stands entered as owner qua the land in question. Mr. N.K. Tomar, learned counsel representing the complainant, further argued that otherwise also, present petition is not maintainable in terms of Section 14 (A) of the Act, which clearly provides that an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court. He submitted that since order framing charge is not interlocutory order, rather intermediate order, petitioners herein ought to have filed criminal appeal under Section 14 (A) of the Act instead of Criminal Revision Petition. Mr. Tomar further submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were never party to the civil suit filed by the respondent Amar Singh, for permanent injunction and as such, they otherwise cannot take benefit of the same in the instant proceedings.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of