JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sarju Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mr. P.D. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 28.02.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Protest-cum-Complaint petition No.1748 of 2012 whereby by way of disagreeing with the Final Form submitted by the police after investigation the order of cognizance has been taken under section 341, 323, 427 and 452 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The First Information Report was lodged on the following terms:

“That, the allegations contained in the First Information Report inter alia is that the petitioner no.1 filed a Civil Suit being Title Suit No.125 of 1989 against the complainant and others which was decreed ex-parte due to lack of proper prosecution and thereafter the petitioners used to stop construction work and in pursuance of such decree, the petitioner no.1 got delivery of possession through Execution Case. On 08.04.2012, the accused persons alleged to have abused the complainant and in spite of information, the police did not take any step rather on 23.04.2012 the accused persons armed with lathi etc came to the complainant and assaulted him with fists and slaps.”

3. Ms. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after investigation the police has submitted Final Form on 23.06.2012 mentioning therein that due to previous Civil Suit, the case was lodged and the matter relates to civil dispute. According to him, on 19.10.2012, the opposite party no.2 filed a protest cum complaint petition against the petitioners which was registered as Protest-cum-Complaint petition No.1748 of 2012. He submits that the land in question was the subject matter of Title Suit being Title Suit No.125 of 1989 and possession of that was provided to the petitioners pursuant to the execution of the said decree by the concerned court. He submits that in the protest cum complaint petition also so far as SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, the ingredients under those sections are not made out. He refers to paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the protest petition and submits that it was within the wall of the complainant. He submits that for a civil dispute unnecessarily the petitioners have been dragged in the criminal proceeding. According to him, only by way of adducing 2 or 3 witnesses, putting the criminal proceeding in motion is a serious thing.

4. Mr. Sarju Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2 submits that after the protest petition was filed the learned court has considered the evidence adduced by the complainant and thereafter has taken cognizance. He submits that it is well settled that once the Final Form has been submitted and if the Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the case is made out, the Magistrate is empowered to move in accordance with law and accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that it is well within the domain of the Magistrate to proceed further if he comes to a conclusion that there is prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners.

6. In view of the above facts, the Court has examined the F.I.R as well as complaint petition which was filed after submission of the Final Form. In the Final Form, the police after investigation has submitted that this is arising out of a civil case and the petitioners are in possession pursuant to the Title Suit decree passed by the competent court. Thereafter, the protest petition was filed. In paragraph no.5 of the complaint petition, it is disclosed that the petitioners have reached to the door of the