IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5651 of 2005 1. MANJU SAHANI @ MAJNU SAHANI, @ Majnu Sahani 2. Ramanand Sahani 3. Shankar Sahani 4. Lakhi Sahani Above all are sons of late Beni Sahani, resident of village – Chakbajo, P.S. – Saraiya, District – Muzaffarpur. ------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ram Kishun Ram, son of Punkal Ram, resident of village – Chakbajo, P.S. – Saraiya, District – Muzaffarpur. ----------- Opposite parties. ------- For the petitioners : Mrs. Bela Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amrendra Prasad, APP 05. 16.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 28.02.2002 passed by S.D.J.M. West Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 1476/2002 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 341, 323, 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act). It is undisputed that on the application of informant opposite party no.2, Saraiya P.S. Case No. 104 of 2001 dated 11.06.2001 for the offence under sections 341, 323, 354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein subsequently vide order dated 23.09.2001 Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled - 2 - Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was also inserted. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet on 11.10.2001, thereafter the court below took cognizance vide impugned order dated 28.02.2002. The only submission against the impugned order of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case was investigated by A.S.I. whereas Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, clearly bars investigation by such person, rather it specifically prescribed investigation by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. No doubt, subsequently, vide notification dated 03.06.2002, now the right of investigation has been vested to Sub-Inspector of Police, also but that too only from the date of such notification. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to submit that since the case was instituted for other offences of the penal code so the entire investigation or order cannot be quashed but such submission is not acceptable in view of the earlier decision of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 12178/2004 dated 13.10.2006. Wherein entire investigation has been accessed on the similar ground. In view of the above legal position, order dated 28.02.2002 quashed. This application stands allowed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) - 3 -