IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT RAM PRATAP VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & 8 ORS. S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 1170 of 2008 Under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated Feb. 22, 2008 of Special Judge SC/ST Cases Tonk in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2007 whereby he set aside the order dated May 9, 2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Niwai Tonk in FIR No. 371 of 2005 taking cognizance against the accused non-petitioners 2 to 9 for offence under sections 147, 447, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1) (v) of SC/ST Atrocities Act. Date of Order : Feb. 17, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Sandeep Jain for the petitioner Mr. K.C.Sharma, for the accused non-petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : The complainant petitioner Ram Pratap has filed this revision petition against the order dated Feb. 22, 2008 of Special Judge SC/ST Cases Tonk in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2007 whereby he set aside the order dated May 9, 2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Niwai Tonk in FIR No. 371 of 2005 taking cognizance against the accused non-petitioners 2 to 9 for offence under sections 147, 447, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(5) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act ( in short SC/ST Act). 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant petitioner filed a complaint against the accused non-petitiones 2 to 9 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai for the offence under sections 147, 447, 323, 341, and 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST Act. It was stated in the complaint that the accused non-petitioners 2 to 9 wrongfully came in his Khasra Nos. 293, 294, and 296 on September 21, 2005 and started to destroy the crops of Til by Tractor and also inflicted injury and used bad words. The ACJM Niwai sent the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Police Station, Niwai. On that basis the police registered FIR bearing No. 371 of 2005 for the offence under sctions 147, 447, 323, 341, and 427 IPC and section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ ST Act. The police started investigation and submitted final report before the ACJM Niwai. The ACJM Niwai after hearing both the counsel for the parties and considering the statements and other material available on record, took cognizance against the accused non-petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 447, and 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of SC/ ST Act and issued summons to the accused for their presence. The accused non-petitioners filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge Tonk, who transferred it to Special Judge SC/ sT Cases Tonk, who vide order dated Feb. 22, 2008 quashed and set aside the order dated May 9, 2007 of the ACJM. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated Feb. 22, 2008 of the Special Judge, SC/ ST Cases Tonk, the complainant petitioner filed the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 4. Mr. Sandeep Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the complainant specifically stated in the his statement and also pleaded in FIR that he and his brothers are the owner of the Khasra No. 293, 294, and 296. On September 21, 2007 the accused non-petitioners 2 to 9 wrongfully came in his field and started destroying the Crops of Til by Tractor and also inflicted injury and used bad words. The statement of complainant was supported by witness Hajari lal. The Patwari who prepared Mauka report also supported the above mentioned fact. The revisional court without considering the matter from this aspect quashed the cognizance order. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.C.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for accused- non-petitionrs 2 to 9 and Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the Special Judge SC/ ST Cases properly considered the material available on record and passed a reasoned order. 6. I have gone through the entire material available on record and the orders passed by the courts below. In my opinion the order passed by Special Judge SC/ ST Cases deserves to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case and the matter should be remanded back to him to again hear both the parties and pass fresh order. Any comments at this stage in the matter will prejudice either case of the parties. 7. For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Special Judge SC/ ST Cases dated Feb. 22, 2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Special Judge SC/ ST cases Tonk for rehearing the parties and pass a fresh order within fifteen days after receipt of certified copy of the order of this court. As the main petition has been disposed the stay application also stands disposed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/