The court held that cognizance for offences under the SC/ST Act cannot be taken without a chargesheet, while maintaining cognizance for IPC offences due to specific allegations.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) cases, Jamshedpur in connection with SC/ST case no. 30 of 2023 arising out of Golmuri P.S. case no. 160 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jamshedpur has found sufficient materials to proceed against the appellants for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC as well as under Sections 3 (1) (iv) (ix) (x) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and took cognizance of the said offences though chargesheet was submitted against the appellant only for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another , (2023) 15 SCC 135 , submit that therein in para 19, it was observed that if the allegations in the complaint petition which was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC for registration of the FIR, are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants next relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another , (2020) 10 SCC 710 submit that therein in the facts of that case, where the occurrence took place within four walls of the building, it was observed that it cannot be said that such occurrence took place within public view by relying upon its own judgment in the case of Swaran Singh vs. State , (2008) 8 SCC 435 and further went on to hold that if there is any dispute in respect of possession, is pending before the civil court, the same would not disclose an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It is next submitted that allegations against the appellant are false and learned Special Judge ought not have taken cognizance of the offences in respect of which charge sheet was not submitted i.e. the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that learned Special Judge without application of judicial mind has taken cognizance of the said offences. It is next submitted that informant has already filed the Original Title Suit no. 23 of 2019 in respect of the land in question, hence it is submitted that the prayer as made in this appeal be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegations against the appellant of committing forgery by making false documents pertaining to ownership of the land belonging to the respondent no. 2 and the said allegations was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and they have also committed the offence of cheating and in criminal conspiracy of t