ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved of order dated 12.04.2024 passed the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Panna, whereby according to the applicant's counsel Shri Surendra Singh, learned Court without considering the Closure Report furnished by the Police authorities after due investigation and holding that no case is made out against the applicant has taken cognizance by adopting a procedure not known in terms of the provisions contained in Section 14 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1989") which in the proviso below Sub-Section (1) provides that the Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act.

2. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR was lodged before the Police Station Sunwani, District Panna (M.P.) bearing Crime No. 32/2016 under Section 307 IPC, 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

3. It is submitted that the brief facts are that the victim and her husband were encroaches on the Government land where a school was to be constructed. There was an order for removal of the encroachment, i.e. order dated 18.11.2016 Passed by the Tehsildar - Amanganj, District Panna, asking the police authorities to visit the place of occurrence alongwith Patwari Halka, Sarpanch and Secretary of the Grampanchayat to start the work of construction.

4. It is submitted that, petitioner at the relevant point of time was Gram Sarpanch, therefore, he had visited the place and the encroachment was removed and much thereafter, in the evening victim had put kerosene on herself and tried to immolate in which regard reliance is placed on the report of Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sub-Divisional Officer Gunnour District Panna as was produced by him on 02.05.2017 in Criminal Case No. 001/2017 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is submitted that when police filed closure report, it was not open to the learned Special Judge to adopt a procedure foreign to the law and since Section 20 of the SC/ST (PoA), 1989 provides that the Act shall override other laws, no procedure other than one mentioned in the Act of 1989 could have been adopted.

5. Shri Surendra Singh, fairly submits that, either learned Special Court could have taken a cognizance rejecting the Closure report or should have accepted the closure report, but it was not open to the trial Court to have traveled beyond the closure report to take cognizance of the offence after recording statement of 13 witnesses, therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance needs to be set-aside.

6. It is also submitted that the Niab Tehsildar Shri Prajapati who had taken dying declaration of the victim had deposed in his police statements that victim was tutored and therefore, the Investigating Officer refused to rely on such statements and had submitted closure report.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand supports the order and places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Bansal and another vs Jawaharlal Vats & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 207 to submit that the Magistrate is bound to give notice to informant, if he decides not to take cognizance or not to take cognizance as regards some accused. But the Magistrate cannot compel police to change their opinion.

8. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, it is important to refer to Section 15(A) of the Act of 1989. It deals with rights of victim and witnesses. Sub-Section (5) of Section 15(A) of the Act of 1989 provides that "A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arg