IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 317/2008 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Jaipal Singh Yadav & Another …….Applicants Versus Smt. Munni Devi ……Respondent Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, for the respondent. 20th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By means of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the prayer has been advanced to quash the order of cognizance dated 14.12.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 5395/2006, Smt. Munni Devi v. Jaipal Singh & Another. The said order of cognizance has been passed against Jaipal Singh Yadav, Head Master of a school, and Jodh Singh, Pradhan of the village “Paurowali” asking them to stand trial for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act (for short, the Act). 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that on 18.11.2006, an incident occurred in the Primary School, Paurowali where Jaipal Singh was the Head Master. On that day, at about 11.30 am, when Jaipal Singh was indulged in the summary revision of the election voter list in the premises of his school, Smt. Sheela Devi, Smt. Munni, Km. Chunni and BB Singh @ Gordhan Das, all residents of Paurowali, came there. They interfered with 2 Jaipal Singh and other staff members. When asked not to do so, these intruders hurled abuses and intimidated Jaipal Singh and other teachers and threatened to kill them. They also tore the papers of election voter list. Hearing the commotion, Panchayat Sachiv Rajeev Kumar, Village Pradhan Jodh Singh and Head Master of another school Ishampal, Assistant Teachers Sheesh Ram and Hari Raj Singh nay Smt. Neelam (Bhojanmata) and another villager Ajit Singh came to their rescue. Thereafter Jaipal Singh lodged an FIR on the same day, which resulted into the submission of the chargesheet against Smt. Sheeal Devi, Smt. Munni Devi, Km. Chunni and BB Singh under Section 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC. This Court has been apprised that the trial on the basis of that chargesheet is going on before the court concerned. 3. On the other hand, Smt. Munni Devi also tried to lodge the FIR in the concerned police station, but she could not be successful. So, she moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 28.11.2006, but the allegations made there in are different. It is averred in the complaint moved by Smt. Munni Devi that a drain was constructed for evicting the filthy water, but the same got blocked. Therefore, one Phool Singh, brother-in-law of Smt. Munni Devi requested the Gram Pradhan Jodh Singh to put the drain in order and save them from foul smell and spreading of infectious diseases. It annoyed the Village Pradhan and he started abusing Phool Singh and also bate him. Phool Singh along with other members of his family staged a dharna in front of the residence of District Magistrate concerned. Being further annoyed by staging the dharna, Gram Pradhan Jodh Singh in conspiracy with Head Master Jaipal Singh Yadav bate the son of Smt. Munni Devi named Shekhar, aged 14 years, who was the student of 2nd 3 standard in that school. When Master Shekhar disclosed this unhappy incident to Smt. Munni Devi, then she took her son to the school on that very day, where the Gram Pradhan Jodh Singh was also present. Seeing the arrival of Smt. Munni along with her son, they both hurled abuses including caste indicative words and threatened that they will set right their Netagiri as they had staged a dharna against them. After abusing them, they both began to assault Smt. Munni Devi and her son Shekhar with slaps, fists and kicks. Hearing the noise, witnesses Jagdish, Saheb Singh, Mange Ram and others came to their rescue. Gram Pradhan and Head Master further intimidated Smt. Munni asking her to stop the activities of staging a dharna against them. 4. After recording the statement of Smt. Munni Devi under Section 200 CrPC and statements of her witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order of cognizance. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants, while challenging the order of cognizance, has relied upon the two precedents. First precedent is of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Nandkishor & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another, reported in 2000 (3) Crimes 368, while the second precedent is of Madhya Pradesh high Court rendered in the case of J.N. Fuloria v. Smt. Benibai, reported in 2000 (3) Crimes 179. In both the precedents, it has been held that since Section 14 of the Act envisages the creation of Special Courts for the purpose of speedy trial of the matters pertaining to the Act. Such Special Courts shall be having the status of Court of Sessions notified as such by the State Government with the concurrence of Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. So, the court of Magistrate was 4 not empowered to take cognizance in any complaint case directly where even the part of the offence pertained to the Act and the proper course for the Magistrate was to return the complaint with direction to the complainant to present it before the Special Court constituted for trying the offences punishable under the Act. 6. Both the aforesaid precedents are not applicable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maly v. State of Kerela, reported in 2004 SAR (Cri) 400, wherein it has been held that the Court of Sessions (Special Court) cannot take cognizance of offence straight away without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with provisions of Section 193 CrPC. The complaint or chargesheet cannot straight away be laid down before it. 7. In yet another case of M.A. Kuttappan v. E. Krishna Nayannar, reported in 2004 SAR (Cri) 308, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further reiterated that where a complaint is straight away filed in the court of Special Judge for the offences punishable under the Act, then the Special Judge has no jurisdiction over it, and if the cognizance order has been passed by the Special Judge then it has erred in entertaining the complaint filed before it and in issuing process after taking cognizance without the case being committed to it for trial by a competent Magistrate. 8. Another argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that medical examination of Smt. Munni and Shekhar done on 20.11.2006 revealed half to one day’s old injuries, which indicates that injuries at the most might have been caused on 19.11.2006, while the incident is 5 alleged to have taken place at about 4 pm on 18.11.2006. This argument is also not acceptable for the reason that the view of the Doctor is not conclusive, it is only advisory in nature and more so when the Doctor has not manifested his firm view that the injuries are exactly half to one day’s old. He has used the word “about half to one day old”. So, there may be possibility that these injuries might have been caused in the evening of 18.11.2006. 9. In view of the abovenarrated facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of cognizance. This petition is meritless and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 21.5.2008 stands vacated. 11. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 20.12.2011 Prabodh