JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

2. These petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. In both the criminal miscellaneous petitions, common question of fact are involved and that is why both the petitions have been heard together. In Cr. M.P. No.2116 of 2013, Ajay Prasad is the petitioner and in Cr. M.P. No.620 of 2013, Manoj Prasad is the petitioner who are brothers. In both the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1518 of 2012 including the order dated 08.01.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby cognizance under section 379 IPC and section 3(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocity) Act, 1989 have been taken against the petitioners. On the basis of written report of O.P.No.2, First Information Report was instituted vide SC/ST Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No.44 of 2009 for the offence under sections 379, 448, 504 IPC and section 3(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocity) Act, 1989 corresponding to G.R.Case No.3014 of 2009 in which it was alleged that the petitioners who happened to be brothers was known to the informant. Ajay Prasad had removed Rs.8,000/- and one gold ear ring from the house of the informant and even after the assurance, the same has not been returned to her. On 14.02.2019, she went to the house of Ajay Prasad for demand of her cash of Rs.8,000/- and gold ear ring but it has been alleged that Ajay Prasad and his brother Manoj Prasad abused her and threatened her with dire consequence. On such written report, the FIR was registered. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation, vide Final Report No.14/11 dated 28.02.2011, the police has submitted Final Form in favour of the petitioners with the statement that no case under sections 379 and 448 IPC has been made out against the petitioners and no case under section 3(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocity) Act, 1989 is made out and in the Final Form it has been mentioned that false allegation has been made out. After submission of the Final Form, the O.P.No.2 has filed the protest petition in the court below and pursuant thereto the court below has taken the cognizance under Section 379 and section 3(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocity) Act, 1989. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have filed these two petitions.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the cognizance order on the ground that the police has already investigated in detail and thereafter Final Form has been submitted only on the basis of protest petition the court below has taken the cognizance. He submits that cognizance order is also not in consonance with section 190 Cr.PC. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of “Amresh Kumar Dhiraj v. State of Bihar and Another” [Cr. M.P. No.2744 of 2013] (para-25). On this ground, he submits that both the petitions are fit to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that at this stage the Magistrate is only required to look into the solemn affirmation and by way of placing solemn affirmation she submits that prima facie the case is made out and accordingly the court below has taken cognizance. There is no illegality in the impugned order and at this stage this Court may not interfere with the cognizance order. She further submits that in enquiry further witnesses have supported the version of the informant.

6. On perusal of the imp