A Magistrate must take cognizance of offences under the SC & ST (POA) Act if prima facie evidence exists, rather than dismissing for lack of jurisdiction and referring directly to the Special Court.

ORDER :

N. TUKARAMJI, J.

This revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘CrPC’) challenging the propriety of the order dated 30.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.385 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manuguru in Crime No.198 of 2020 of Manuguru Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District whereby the petition for discharge the revision petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 11 has been dismissed..

2. I have heard Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on the police report of respondent No.2, a crime was registered for the offences under Sections 4 98-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and after due investigation the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 4 98-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, ‘the DP Act’). Thereupon, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant had filed protest petition under Section 90 r/w 190 (1)(b) of CrPC contending that the petitioners have committed offence under Section 3(1)®(s) and 3(2)(v)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC & ST (POA) Act). The learned Magistrate on considering the statements and materials concluded that the offence under Section 3(1)®(s) and 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act has been made out. The learned Magistrate by recording that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offence under SC/ST (POA) Act directed to send the entire case bundle to the Special Court. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision case has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the impugned order ex facie is bad in law as the Magistrate has not taken cognizance. Further, holding that there is no jurisdiction for the Court to take cognizance is improper and if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion that there is a case, he has to take cognizance and then forward the materials to the Special Court. Thus the impugned order cannot be sustained.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor pleaded that there is material against the accused for the offence under SC & ST (POA) Act, however, the Magistrate had erred in concluding that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and prayed for passing necessary orders.

6. It is evident by the pleadings that the case was initiated on police report. However, the Court on protest petition found that the offence under the SC & ST (POA) Act is made out. The Magistrate perhaps by noting Section 14 of the SC & ST (POA) Act, the Special Court shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under the Act, ordered to send the entire bundle to the Special Court stating that it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance.

7. In this context, the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is worth noting. In Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors , (2022) 15 SCC 228 held that, “considering the object and purpose of the insertion of the proviso to Section 14 , it could be said that provision is not in conflict with Sections 193 , 207 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” In other words, in respect of offences under the SC & ST (POA) Act, though the Special Court’s power to take cognizance is not exclusive, overriding the Magistrate’s jurisdiction of committal proceedings under Sections 193 , 207 and 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. In this view, as noted above, legal position in the absence of bar of jurisdiction, the Magistrate ought to have taken th