JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 521 of 2012, pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

3. Initially Koderma (S.C. & S.T.) P.S. Case No. 22 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 704 of 2011 was instituted on the basis of the information received from opposite party no. 2 under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After institution of the aforesaid FIR, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer who submitted final form on 30.09.2011 showing false accusation. Against the aforesaid final form, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 filed a protest petition which was converted into Complaint Case No. 521 of 2012 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma took cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 448 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that opposite party no. 2 has initially lodged Koderma (S.C. & S.T.) P.S. Case No. 22 of 2011 against the petitioners, in which the Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation, has submitted final form showing false accusation, against which the opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. He further submits that the complainant has previously filed complaint case being No. 1397 of 2010 (T.R. Case No. 1220 of 2011) against the petitioners with similar accusation in which on 20.06.2011, the learned court after considering the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation and the statement of four enquiry witnesses found prima facie case under Sections 147, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned court was of the opinion that the material available on record were not sufficient and cogent enough to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners under the provision of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in that case cognizance was not taken under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that is why the present case has been filed and the learned court has taken cognizance under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 that too on the protest petition. He also submits that in both the complaint cases, it has come that there is some dispute between the parties with regard to passage of land in question and for that the case has been lodged. On these grounds, he submits that this is a malicious prosecution against the petitioners and in that view of the matter, entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the learned court after considering the solemn affirmation and the statement of four enquiry witnesses, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and in that view of the matter, even if the final form is in favour of the petitioners, on the protest petition, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. He further submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance and this petition is fit to be dismissed.

6. Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned court has taken cognizance on the protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2.

7. In view of the above submissions o