The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the application of judicial mind in the order taking cognizance, as highlighted in State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju and Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.9824 of 2018

I.A. No.9824 of 2018 has been filed for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition.

2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier only FIR was challenged in this petition, however subsequently vide order dated 16.08.2018, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners and that is why the said I.A. has been filed. He submits that this I.A. may kindly be allowed.

3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned counsel for the State are opposing the prayer made in the said I.A. and submit that deliberately this I.A. has not been pressed and that is why it is fit to be dismissed.

4. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the order taking cognizance and finds that the cognizance order was passed on 16.08.2018 whereas the FIR was challenged in the year 2015 itself. To avoid multiplicity of the litigation and in the interest of justice, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.9824 of 2018 is disposed of.

6. Let the said I.A. be treated as part of the main writ petition.

W.P. (Cr.) No.350 of 2015

7. With consent of the parties, the matter has been heard on merit.

8. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned counsel for the State.

9. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR registered as Garhwa P.S. Case No.208/2015 dated 20.05.2015 corresponding to G.R. No.1055/2015, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. I.A. No.9824 of 2018 is allowed and that is why, the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2018 is also under challenge.

10. The complaint was filed alleging therein that the complainant is a Circle Officer posted in Garhwa Circle and she belongs to SC category and she resides in Garhwa along with her seven year son. It was further alleged that the accused persons are influential persons and they used to visit Garhwa Block every day and disturb the working of officials posted in the Block Office. The complainant is afraid of the accused persons because she has decided a case relating to mutation of their land against them, as a result of which, they are frustrated and having grudge against the informant and on the date of occurrence both the accused persons came in the office of the informant and started shouting and abusing her and her subordinates very loudly mentioning her caste and the above act on the part of the accused persons has caused mental harassment to the informant and accordingly a case under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is filed by the informant before the concerned authority. On the basis of the above, the police registered a case under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioners as Garhwa P.S. Case No.208/2015 dated 20.05.2015.

11. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was addressed to the State Women Commission, Jharkhand on 25.01.2015 and the police has registered FIR on 20.05.2015. He submits that in the said complaint, the State Women Commission has passed the order on 08.11.2016 and in the said order, it has been observed that respondent no.2 is a Government officer and she has chosen not to appear before the State Women Commission and it appears that previously complaint has been filed. He further submits that against the order of the State Women Commission, W.P.(C) No.2584 of 2019 was filed before this Court by respondent no.2, which was withdrawn on 23.02.2022. He further submits that prior to the said complaint, the petitioners filed a complaint case against respondent no.2 on 23.01.2015, contained in Annexure-3 of the petition in which cognizance has been