Non-compliance with statutory provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, specifically Section 9 read with Rule 7, led to the quashing of cognizance under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhat Kumar assisted by Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing part of the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No.138/2014, G.R. No.345/2014, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara.

3. On the written report of the Circle Inspector, Jamtara, the case was lodged against the petitioners alleging therein that on 17.04.2014 the informant with the order of the Circle Officer went to Refugee Colony for spot inspection of the work done under HSDP Yojna when in between Srimati Jhimli Majumdar (petitioner no.1) came there and said the informant to show the Circle Officer's order and after showing the same, she snatched it and torn it and also abused the informant because of his caste. It was further alleged by the informant that thereafter other accused persons also came there and started abusing the informant by his caste.

4. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier notices were issued upon respondent no.2, but he has not appeared. The respondent no.2 is the Circle Inspector, Jamtara.

5. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned SC-II has argued on behalf of respondent no.2.

6. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that in view of Section 9 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 and Section 4 of the Cr.P.C., the part of the order dated 29.04.2015 whereby cognizance under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioners, is fit to be quashed. He further submits that admittedly the investigation was conducted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and in view of that Rules, the investigation was required to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and this aspect of the matter has been considered in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and recently in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore & another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 577.

7. Paragraphs 3, 4, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

“3. The preliminary investigation confirmed that the deceased was last seen with the present respondents. After registration of FIR, the investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector and charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondents for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 404/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and Special Case No. 37/11 was registered.

4. During the proceedings in Special Case No. 37/11, statement of the material witnesses PW 2 Narsu, PW 4 Kamla Prajapati and PW 5 Uparia Bai, wife of the deceased Baisakhu were recorded. It appears from the record that at the advanced stage of the trial, a grievance was raised by the respondents that they had been charged under Section 3(2) (v) of the 1989 Act and since the investigation has been conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is the mandate of law as provided under Section 9 of the 1989 Act read with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 1995 Rules”), the very investigation is faulty and illegal and that deserves to be quashed and set aside and in consequence thereof, further proceedings in trial does not hold good and the respondents deserve to be discharged.

10. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the respondents were charged under Sections 302/34, 404/34 IPC apart from Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act and the charges under IPC have been framed after the investigation by a competent police officer under t