PETITIONERS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J Cr. M.P. No. 57/2008 1. Kunwar Singh Rajput, aged about 50 years, sonof Shri Durug Singh, Rajkumar Rajput, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Durug Singh, Neta alias Uttara Kumar Rajput, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Komal Singh Rajput All are resident of village Tribhuwanpur, P.S. Patharia, Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Versus Mahabali son of late Ramsahay, aged about 37 years, caste Satnami, resident of village Tribhuwanpur P.S. Patharia, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG). RESPONDENT This petition is directed against the order dated 8.10.2007 passed by Special Judge, (Atrocities) Bilaspur, in criminal revision No. 182/2007 affirming the order dated 24.3.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case. No. 338/2007. 2. The order of the Revisional Court is challenged on the ground that it has committed an illegality by holding that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, is having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint as the subject matter of the complaint was within the / l, jursidciton of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli. 3. Brief facts leading to the disposal of the present petition are that the complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for l ORDER (Passed on 17 .4.2008) Mr. Bharat Rajput counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Tekam counsel for the respondent. PETITION UNDER UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. the offences punsishable under sections 342, 294, 323, 147 and 506-” of the IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act"), before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. After examining the complainant and his witnesses under sections 200 to 202 of the Code of i, Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, registered the complaint under sections 341, 323,294 and 506—ll of the IPC and issued process. The said order of ACJM, Bilaspur, was challenged in revision on the ground that ACJM was not having jursidcition to take cognizance of the complaint as the offence alleged was committed within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli. The revisional Court dismissed the revision by the order impugned holding that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrae, Bilaspur, was competent to take cognizance of the complaint as the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of police station, (Anusuchit Jati Janjati) Bilaspur. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the Courts below. 5. lt is argued on behalf of the petitioner that in accordance with the order of distribution of work passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur under Section 14 of the Code, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, was not having jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence committed within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli. 6. On the other hand, the impugned order is supported on behalf of l the respondent. Ll 7. The complaint was filed for the offences punishable under the provisions of lndian Penal Code and the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bilaspur. After examining the /Z,- complainant and his witnesses under sections 200 to 202 of the Code, ACJM, Bilaspur, registered the complaint for the offences under sections 342, 294‘ 323, 147 and 506-II of the IPC but it did not register the case for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It is not disputed by the parties that for the offences punishable under the provisions of indian Penal Code oniy the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, was competent to take cognizance of the complaint and issue process. ln accordance with section 177 of the Code, only the Judicial Magistrae First Class, Mungeli, was competent to take cognizance of the complaint. 8. The present case does not fall under any category of section 178 of the Codeand only on the ground that the matter was previously reported to Police.Station, (Anusuchit Jati Janjati), Bilaspur, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, does not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the ACJM, Bilaspur, has not found a prima facie case under section 3(1)(x) of the Act,,l am of the opinion that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, is not competent to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant. Thus theorder impugned is not sustainable in law and to secure the ends of justice continuance continuance of proceedings before the ACJM, Bilaspur, would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 10. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby set aside. Criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, is transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mungeli. Parties are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli. Sdl- T.P.Sharma 1 - ’ Judge ’ f a a