INTHEHI^COURTOKCHHATTIS6ARHAT_BI(,ASRUR APPLICANT CrJWJ:>"No.fO^ /2006 P. ^SHIV PRASAD RAO S/o P.J. Rao, a9edQbout48yedrs,l:)ycasteChristian, R/e t>eyr^khurd, Bilaspyr, P.S. Torwa, DistriGt: Bilaspur. Af presen-f- resicling at Mission Rbad Ghampa, P.S. Chctmpd) CiistriG^:J'anjgjr-Champa[C.G:] % [Accusecl in Crii'ninal Case No. 902/2006] VERSUS RESPONDENT STATE OF €HHATTIS6ARW Through - Poljee Station- Ghampa, Districl-;Janjgir-ChampatG.(S.]. AN APPLICATLON U/5 482r_ QE COOE OF CRIMINAt. PROCEDURE FOR QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDIN6S WITH REGARD TO CMAR6E OF -4N ADDITIONAL OFFENCE FRAMED U/S 3[1]B3:1 OF 5CHEE)ULED CASTE ANb SCHEDULED TRIBES [PREV6NTION OF ATROCJTIES]. ACT 1989 BY THE COURT OF LEARNE& GHIEF JUDICIAL MAOTSTRATE. ^ANJSIR. IN CI^A^NAL^^^^^^^ 902/2006.^' ^ 's H na ^.;^R.is..)s.^!B( XI-HC-22 il :.i an^T^iT R-ii+sn^r Sh11«bflf?(T *11*1MI Sh*ll<*> 3^ •<ii<ii?i<i, .aTnu'is, R|cfiy^< OT^Tq^". ("v. H\/y/Jo. ' iO 6/S^O 6 'W^ 200 Rl'b.d 3T^T?^<iraT'Eri?(T 21.12.2006 Shri Gurudev Sharan, Heard on admission. Orier passed as folloivj ^ounsel for the petitioaer. OBtAL ORDBR e 11.12.2006) tl&e whUe rtim, Scheduled SunU Kumar Sinha, J. By way of this pctition petitioner has chaUenged Magistrate, by which, provisions ofI.P.C., leamed material produced before Section 3 (1) (xi) oftihc (Rrevention ofAtrocities) Act, the above, in fhe capacity o( inatter for trial to the Leamed counscl for docuinents filcd by fhc pro; Nisha Shalmi Mimnur has Caste, which has been State of Bihar. He refers to Onter, 1950, in which unde|r Bihar, Caste Santa? has bee^ submission is that since ttt( Chhattisgarh, therefore, acccji concenlied qilllMtfl-l lltldT fr' fetrfl' tRf+iiK ^isrf^iTsn^r pled imder Section 482 ofCr.P.C., the validity of action taken by the hearing the inattcr under fhe |<agistrate npticed fhat on the basis of i, prima facie, an oflFence under Castes and fhe Scheduled Tribes 1989 is also made out and ia view of committal Court, he coinmitted the Special Court. fhe petitioner aiyies tfaat as per ^ecution, the prosecutnx naiaely Ku. >ecn shown to be bclongmg to Santal as the Scheduled Tribe in the yhe Constttution (Seheduted nibes) Part-III ofschedule, which relates to shown to be a Scheduled Tribe. His offence took place in the State of }r3ing to the aforesaid Order, 1950 fhe decbred E" ft^ M-:. S^^ITiIRTT, grctoFI®,(sK'IKriy gn^Tq?^ ^ft^P- /v/o" 106/S^o^ ^ 200 *<11rtTS»>HI«h fd^ 3;ii^T5t<iTSRflf?(r -2 said caste does not come therefore, an ofiFence ofatroci|lywould not be made out. This argument appea|rs to be totaBy misconceived. On perusal of Section 2 (c) oftJ&^ Scheduled Castes and the Schcduled ••'( Tribes (Prevention of Ateocit^es) Act, 1989 (hercinafter referred to as fhe Act) "Scheduled Castjss and Schediiled Tribes" have been described whicb says that Tribes' shall have fhe ineafimgs assigaed to them respectively uader clause (24) and clause Scheduled Tribes for fhe under entry 28 theirof Caste of ffae complamant, in whicl)| to Sanlal caste, it cannot b< Scheduled Tribe for the purp( offence is said to have Chhattisgarh. She woiild be] t>l<<fi-]<fl'l WTcff if fgc^ <R|<^K ^ari^q-sn^T as Scheduled Tribe for fhis area, 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled (25) offfl-ticle 366 ofthe Constitution. Clause (25) ofArticle 366 de|Emes 'Scheduled Tribes' which means such tribes or tnbal cominuD|ities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal coiniauruties fas are deemed under article 342 to be ^urposes of fhis Constitution. The Constitution (Scheduled Tijibes) Order, 1950 contams in its schedule Part-III about fhe Sfate of Bihar aad, as referred to above, Sanlal has been mentioned. In view of the above atd also in view of the caste certiificate she has been shown to be belonging said that fhere was no pnma facic evidence to hold that fhe vic1|un/complainant was a meiuber of )ses ofthis Act on the ground that the beeu conunitted in fhe State of deemed to be a Scheduled Tribe for the puu-poses ofthisAct for ^ntire area to which the Act appU.es by virtue of sub-section (2) of $ecyon 1 of the saidAct, which says -T^^f^) .t XI-HC-22 3-fl^T^iT R-ii+sn^T sh*li<0 flf?(T 3:sr?WIMi:T, tSTflu'ls, RlclKiy *<i*ini 9i*<icn 3TT^?TTg^' ^ , C^. ftl; ^'(Vo'. '~<0 6/Q-^ 6 ^.....................^ 200 fSre^ 3n^r?WTWflf?tT -3 ntust fhat "it extends to the whole I Kashmy. The normal rule ofintt the Legislature are genera^ principle of jnterpretation.l6^ fhe rule that fhe Court mv.it fi'om the words used in the] must not iaterpolate or legisl^te does not waste words wifhou! used by the Legislature significance. It is wellsettle<| certain terms or expressions coiuiotation the Courts inustl in the popular sense. The oonlemporanea expositio is a Statute by reference to ft(e contemporary authority, th<| langu^e of the Statute is interpretations are pemussibjle, object should be preferrcd. The main object of the| ofifences ofatrocities against Scheduled Tribes to which taken, the whole object offhe| +i'iif<')'ifl-i 4i^<-iTfffec^t<Ri'Ki< ^)3ri^IT3tI^T of India except the State ofJaminu & 'rpretation is fhat the words used by y a safe guide to its uitention. No Statutes is more Simty setfled than |t deduce the intention of Parliament Act. Courts in iaterpretiug Statutes ;. It is weU settled fhat a Legislature any intention, and every word that is be given its due import aad that wheaever the Legislature uses of wcll bnown legal significaace or |interpret them as used or understood ^ule of construction by reference to ^veU estabUshed rule for iaterpreting a exposition it has received fix>m |>ugh it inust gwe way where the (laia aad unainbiguous. Even if two :, that which furthers the beneficial Act is to prevent fhe commission of |the member of Schediiled Castes and |the Act applies and if such a viewis lAct would be Irustrated. j -'c<^^^) XI-HC-22 sn^r^r f?:iRi3n^r CTWgfScT ^ratfa ^ *ll*1Mr shKlth 'S^ "4Wld*t, »Tn'Hil<o, Isli-ll'My 3TT^?T^ach ^ftl.P.Mo. lo6/^ yt 200 f°re% 3n^r?T(irw?ri^T \ -^i\ There may be a ca^e Scheduled Caste or Scheduled area may have gone out ofthjat bften' AK^ have,the victim of the atzv^i th he/she is enlisted as the a particular area, therefore,| applied to hjm/her, he/she ^ fhe whole object of fhe Ac^ offence of atrocities agai^ meaaingless aad redundant.| can be read like ttus. In view of the above, I and the same is dismissed atl gchleduled ga4ist +i<i|F<vi41-i ^itirtTfff3t^<Ri^<;i< ^srf^tITSTI^T e ui which a person belonging to Tribe and residing in a particular area for some casual work and may 'ities aad if such a viewistaken that Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the provisions of Act would aot be rould not be getting benefit ofAct and wfaich is to prevent commission of such person, would render No Statute having simple e?cpression jdo not find any inerits ia tfais petition tfae motion stage Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (tft^y^) ^