Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. Earlier notices were issued upon the O.P. No. 2 and the notices have been effected. Today when the matter was taken up, on repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.no.2. Identical was the situation on 20.4.2023 and on that day the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. No. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the matter is being heard on merit in absence of O.P. No. 2.

2. Heard Ms. Supriya Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 19.3.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj arising out of Complaint Case No. 986 of 2012 pursuant to SC/ST Case No. 10 of 2013, pending before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A) Act, Palamau.

4. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that a complaint being Complaint Case No. 640 of 2011 was earlier lodged by the complainant-opposite party no.2 under section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 17.06.2011 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, which was sent u/s 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of the first information report to the officer in charge, vide order dated 20.6.2011. Thereafter, the first information report was registered at ST/SC Police Station Daltonganj being ST/SC Daltonganj P.S. Case 06 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 1111 of 2011 section 3/4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In the said complaint which has been made basis for lodging of the first information report, the allegation has been made by the opposite party no.2 herein that on 12.05.2011 about 10 P.M. all the accused persons started demolishing boundary wall of the complainant and when the complainant and her husband forbid them then abused them saying accused persons Adivasi Chero with threatening that they would demolish the house also and they were asked to go away leaving the house. It is further alleged that the husband of complainant is a teacher and belonging to a respectable family and the accused persons had insulted them. The written complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Palamau twice but no action has been taken. The investigation of the case was conducted by the Dy. S.P. and after ful-fledged investigation the case was found untrue during the course of investigation, such occurrence was taken place on the alleged date of occurrence, whereas on the other hand it was found during the course of investigation that the complainant had obstructed and encroached Aam Rasta, which was objected by Mohalla people and as such a false case was lodged against the accused persons and Sy.S.P. finding the case not true had submitted final report as untrue in the case. The final report was submitted in the Court of the learned chief judicial magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj being Final Report No. 43 of 2011 dated 3.11.2011. Thereafter (informant)-opposite party no.2 herein had lodged a protest petition in ST/SC Case No. 06 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 1111 of 2011 and the protest petition has been registered as Complaint Case No. 986 of 2012 in which section 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been subsequently added apart from section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 427, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, vide order dated 19.03.2013 and summons were issued against the petitioners. Thereafter the case has been transferred to the Court of the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj which has been registered as ST/SC Case No. 10 of 2013.

5. Ms. Supriya Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was sent to the police under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. in which the investigation was completed and final form has been submitted whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial however on protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance and what are the prima facie materials are not disclosed in the order taking cognizance. She further submits that in the entire complaint there is no averment that this petitioner is not belonging to the caste of the O.P. No. 2 and in view of that only, the SC/ST case is not made out.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the final form has been submitted whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial however on the protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance.

7. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the complaint petition as well as the order taking cognizance. It appears that in the entire complaint petition it is not averred that the petitioners are not belonging to the caste of the O.P.no.2 which is one of the ingredients to take cognizance under SC/ST Act has held in the case of "Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.", (2008) 12 SCC 531. Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted below:

"13. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964 AC 1254 : (1964) 2 WLR 1145 : (1964) 2 All ER 401 (HL)] Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys [1977 AC 1 : (1976) 2 WLR 857 : (1976) 2 All ER 497 (HL)] stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the Judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the courts' power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.

14. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866] this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."

8. Further the case was investigated by the police and the petitioners have not been sent up for trial however on protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance and in the order taking cognizance it has not been disclosed that what are the prima facie materials disclosed in solemn affirmation and the enquiry witnesses which suggest that the case under the SC/ST Act is not made out.

9. In view of the above reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 19.3.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 986 of 2012 pursuant to SC/ST Case Noa.10 of 2013, pending before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A) Act, Palamau are quashed.

10. This petition is allowed and disposed of.

11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.