The main legal point established in the judgment is that only the Special Court constituted for the purpose of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is competent to take cognizance under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party-State and Mr. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken 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 on merit.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate I/C, Dhanbad, in Dhanbad SC/ST P.S. Case No.14/2017, corresponding to G.R. No.3301/2017, whereby, cognizance under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes ad Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been taken against the petitioners.

4. The prosecution case has been lodged on the basis of written complaint of the informant/opposite party no.2, wherein, it has been alleged that on 05.09.2017 at about 9-10 O'clock Shankar, Dipak Singh, Jitendra Sharma, Sarju Pandit, Shanti Devi came to her house and forcibly open the cattle and assaulted upon it, when opposite party no.2 and her family members opposed then they started to abuse by taking their caste name and threatened to leave the house, which was opposed by the victim and the accused person Shankar thrown her by catching her log and assaulted her along with other accused persons. When daughter and son-in-law of the informant came to save her, all the accused persons started assaulting them. All the household articles thrown by the accused persons and locked the door of the house and took possession and assaulted upon husband of the opposite party no.2 and threatened not to allow him to do the job in BCCL, kill him and throw his body into mines. It was also alleged that the accused persons snatched the Mangal Sutra and ear ring of daughter of the opposite party no.2 and they also took Rs.20,000/-from her house. It was further alleged that the accused persons have taken the victim in a public place and assaulted and ashamed to her. It was also alleged that Shankar spoken that he will open a garage and Dipak Singh, Jitendra Sharma and Sarju Pandit want to keep theft diesel in the house of opposite party no.2.

5. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cognizance order is not tenable in view of the fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has got no authority to take cognizance under Section 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes ad Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities). He draws attention of the Court to Section 14 of the said Act and submits that the Court of Sessions has been described as a Special Court to try the offences under this Act and only that Court is having power to take cognizance of the offences under the said Act.

6. Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, learned counsel for the State submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has got no power in view of Section of the said Act and the cognizance order is bad in law.

7. This has also been fairly accepted by Mr. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Section 14 of the said Act in the case of Moly and another v. State of Kerala , reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. 1812 (SC) in paragraphs 8 and 9, which are quoted herein below:

“8. Section 14 of the Act says that:

“for the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act.”

9. So it is for trial of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of Session in each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court. Though the word