IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.411 of 2004 Prem Singh S/o Shri Indra Singh R/o Village Nawasu, Patwari Circle Kherakhal, Tehsil & District Rudryaprayag ……..…Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal(Uttarakhand) ....……Opposite Party Shri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 26.05.2004, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudryaprayag, in criminal case no. 200 of 2004, State vs. Basant Singh, whereby said court has summoned the 2 petitioner Prem Singh to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under section 323/34, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application was moved by the complainant Munna Lal before the Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., naming accused Basant Singh and Prem Singh. On said application the Magistrate got registered the crime no. 2 of 2002, with P.S./Patwari Circle Kherakhal. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found that offences have been made out only as against the accused Basant Singh in respect of one punishable under section 323, 504 I.P.C. The trial proceeded accordingly against the said accused. However, it appears that during trial, prosecution moved an application after recording the statement of P.W.1 Munna Lal and P.W.2 Hemanti Devi, praying that accused Prem Singh be also summoned by exercising powers under section 319 of Cr.P.C., by the court. On said application, the 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 26.05.2004, summoned the petitioner Prem Singh to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under section 323/34, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. It appears that said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge by filing criminal revision no. 17 of 2004, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.06.2004. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in law in summoning the accused under section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is further pleaded that the revisional court has also erred in-law in affirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is also contended that the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag) has no power to take cognizance under section 319 of Cr.P.C., in respect of offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989, as 4 the cognizance can be taken only by the Special Court, created under the Act. 4. It is settled principle of law that powers under section 319 of Cr.P.C., are not to be exercised by the courts lightly. I, agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Apart from this, it is also pertinent to mention here that the trial court has not observed that the petitioner was not a member of the scheduled caste and the complainant was member of the scheduled caste, nor it is mentioned that the offence has been committed in the public view, to constitute the offence for which the petitioner is summoned. 4. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the courts below, this Court finds that there was no sufficient ground to summon the petitioner. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5 5. The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.05.2004, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, in criminal case no. 200 of 2004 summoning the present petitioner Prem Singh, and the order dated 03.06.2004, passed by Sessions Judge in criminal revision no. 17 of 2004 are hereby quashed. The petition accordingly stands allowed. The trial court may proceed with the case against the accused in respect of whom charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 01.07.2010 Parul