JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2016 in Session Trial No.99/2016 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Jabalpur, whereby charges for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323/34, 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act have been framed against the petitioners.

2. Case of prosecution in brief is that respondent No. 1 has filed a private complaint before JMFC, Jabalpur, requesting to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294, 427 and 506-B of IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. After recording the statement of complainant and other witnesses, the learned JMFC came to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter the learned JMFC has committed the case before Special Judge (Atrocity) who framed the challenged charges by passing the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court committed grave error of law in framing the charges for the alleged offences against the petitioners as no material is available in the case. He submits that the learned ASJ as well as JMFC have failed to see that the complainant did not allege that the accused does not belong to the SC/ST community which is a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence under SC/ST Act. He further submits that the complainant has not filed any MLC or loss certificate, hence, no offence is made out against the petitioners. Even if the contents of the complaint are taken into consideration, the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 is of civil in nature, therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted in criminal case. The respondent No. 1 was trying to raise construction of his house over the Nazul land and making boundary wall over the land belonging to the petitioners and when the petitioners obtained interim order from the Court of Tehsildar, then he falsely implicated them. He further submits that the learned ASJ failed to see that the complainant did not disclose about the eye witness of the incident in his statement. The learned JMFC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in a complaint filed under the provision of SC/ST Act whereas under the Act, only Special Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance under this Act. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this revision and quashment of the charges framed by the learned Special Judge.

4. On the other hand, learned P.L. For the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 oppose the prayer and submit that there is sufficient material available on record for framing the charges for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners have abused and hurt the complainant and also threatened him, therefore, at this initial stage of trial, this revision petition may not be allowed. The petitioners may raise all the grounds before the trial Court at appropriate stage of trial.

5. Heard all the parties and perused the case. Before embarking on the facts of the case, it would be necessary to consider the legal aspects first. Since, by filing this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the charges framed by the learned trial Court, therefore, it is appropriate to deal with the relevant provision of Cr.P.C under Sections 227 and 228, same reads as under:

'227. Discharge . If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

6. If Court finds that there is sufficient material is showing to connect the accused with the afores