IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of discharge or framing of charges, the trial court must consider only the prosecution's evidence, and suspicion alone is sufficient to proceed with the trial.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

1. Appellants-Accused have filed this appeal under Section 14A(1) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.9.2019 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2016; titled Raj Bahadur Chamar vs. Pramod Pandey, arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) X Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Lar, District Deoria, whereby their application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief leading to the appeal are that the opposite party no. 2-Raj Bahadur Chamar filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 1st December, 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, Deoria for registration of FIR and investigation, whereupon vide order dated 8th February, 2012, a direction was issued and a Case Crime No. 99 of 2012 was registered against the accused persons (appellants) under sections 376, 511, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)X Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Lar, District Deoria. As per the allegations, on 29th March, 2011, when the complainant left his house around 10:00 am for work in his agricultural fields, his wife Usha Devi was alone at home. The co-villagers of the complainant namely Pramod Pandey and Sandeep entered his house with an intention to do wrong act with his wife, and they gagged her mouth and attempted to undress her, but his wife shouted and gave them kick and fist blows, whereupon the accused fled away. Pursuant to the information given to the Police Station Lar, the place of occurrence was visited by the police officially.

3. On 1st April, 2011 at around 5:30 pm, Pramod Pandey, Ashok Pandey both sons of Indrasan Pandey, Vinit @ Ankur Pandey s/o Pramod Pandey, Sandeep Pandey, Mukesh both sons of Ramesh Pandey, Anil s/o Jagarnath Pandey and Rupesh s/o Umesh Pandey entered the house of the complainant and started giving kicks, fists and sticks blows to his wife Usha Devi, and when the complainant intervened to save her, he too was given beatings. The complainant and his wife got themselves medically examined at Primary Health Centre, Lar, and also gave information to S.H.O. for registration of the case, but no action was taken upon his complaint, so, he filed the application.

4. After registration of the case, the investigation was carried out and upon conclusion, a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 12th March, 2012 was submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction, thereby exonerating the accused persons.

5. Aggrieved against this final report, the complainant preferred a protest application dated 6th June, 2012 and the Judicial Magistrate, Deoria entertained the same as a complaint case to follow the procedure enshrined under Chapter XV Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 12.1.2015, and further in support of his case, the complainant examined his wife Usha Devi (PW-1) and Lakshmina (PW-2).

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the SC/ST Act was amended and by virtue of Section 14 SC/ST Act, the Special Court was empowered to directly take cognizance of such offence, therefore, the case was sent before the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Deoria. Upon examining the protest petition as well as pre-summoning evidence adduced by the complainant, the process against the accused was issued vide order dated 12.01.2017 by the Special Court, Deoria.

7. It seems that pursuant to the summoning order, the accused did not appear before the Special Court, Deoria and vide order dated 28th September, 2018, non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused to secure their presence. The said order was challenged by accused before this Court through application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing