Jaya Roy - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned counsel for the Opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 09.10.96 by which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323/452/and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(I)(IV),(X) and (XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 and also the entire Criminal Proceeding of Special Case No. 17/96 at present pending before the First Additional Session Judge, cum-Special Judge, Godda.

3. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint petition before the Court of Special Judge, Godda, which was registered as P.C.R. Case No. 09 of 1996.

4. The prosecution case as disclosed in the said complaint case is that on 20th August 1996 in the evening at about 5.00 P. M. the petitioners came to the house of the complainant along with two unknown persons and asked him to vacate the house as they have filed appeal against the order granting purcha to him and on refusal, the accused persons abused the complainant and also assaulted him and his wife with fists and slaps. It is further stated that the accused persons then tried to get the opposite party no.2 out from the house but some villagers pacified the matter but in the mean time the accused persons torn one sari of the wife of opposite party no.2 which is kept at the house, worth Rs.80/- only. The counsel of the petitioners has annexed the Complaint Petition as Annexure- 4 in this application.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner no.1 namely Purushottam Ram Tibrewal died during the pendency of this application before the Hon'ble High Court. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforesaid case was later on numbered as Special Case No.17 of 1996 and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge- cum Special Judge, Godda examined the opposite party no.2 on solemn affirmation on 21.08.96 itself and proceeded with an enquiry under section 202 of the code of Criminal procedure. After enquiry, the learned Special Judge was pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners vide his order dated 9.10.96 under sections 323, 452 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(I),(IV),(X) and (XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

6. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, the learned counsel of the petitioners, has submitted that in the year 1987 the opposite party no.2 along with several other associates made an attempt to grab the land of the petitioners situated in mouza Mahagama, due to which the petitioner no.1 being the head and Karta of the family, filed a case under the provision of S.P.T. Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda vide R.E.R. Case No. 29 of 1987-88 against the present opposite party no.2 and others, making a prayer therein intera-alia to evict them from the land mentioned in Schedule-A in which evidence etc. have already been closed from both side and a final judgment is awaited in the case. Inspite of the pendency of the aforesaid case, the circle officer, Mahagama in collusion with the opposite party no.2 got a purchi issued illegally and arbitrarily in his favour behind the back of the petitioner under the Bihar State Previledged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act vide proceeding no. 37/94-95. However, the petitioner no.1 against the order granting purcha to the opposite party no.2, filed a revision under the wrong instruction, before the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Godda who vide his order dated 13.2.97 directed the petitioner no.1 to file a revision before the competent court i.e. the Commissioner and subsequently, a revision application was filed before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana vide R.M.R. No. 19 of 1997-98. The learned Commissioner, Sa