Ashutosh Verma vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 3549 Del

$~6
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CRL.M.C. 2344/2016
      ASHUTOSH VERMA                                     .....Petitioner
                     Through:   Mr. M. Hasibuddin, Advocate
                          Versus
      THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR                   ....Respondents
                     Through:   Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
                                alongwith Sureshpal, ACP/South East
                                Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Kunal
                                Sachdeva, Advocates for respondent
                                No.2

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
                    ORDER

% 24.07.2017

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') for setting aside of order dated 30.05.2016 passed by Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, MM-10 (South-East), Saket Court, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 alongwith her son filed a written complaint dated 26.09.2014 before the respondent No.1 alleging that the petitioner and his associates misbehaved with her and her son and passed caste related remarks. The respondent No.1 after thorough scrutiny of the complaint refused to lodge an FIR, however on the intervention of the National Commission for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes, the respondent No.1 registered the FIR on 21.08.2015 U/s 323/506 IPC & 3(1)(x)(xi)

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further stated that after the registration of FIR the investigation was entrusted upon the ACP. On completion of the investigation the IO filed the Final closure report U/s 173 on 30.05.2016. The Magistrate vide order dated 30.05.2016 took cognizance of the present case and summoned the accused persons.

3. Assailing the order of the Magistrate dated 30.05.2016 the petitioner filed the present petition.

4. Mr. M. Hasibuddin, counsel for the petitioner contended that on the receipt of the closure report submitted by the IO of this case, the Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance; that the Magistrate has taken cognizance without applying his judicial mind and without giving any reason of taking cognizance issued summons to the petitioner; that as per Chapter IV of SC/ST Act section 14, it is the Special Court who is to take cognizance and the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance which is against the provisions embodied in the statute.

5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State and Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, counsel for respondent No.2 (Smt. Ram Kali) conceded to the argument advanced by the petitioner to the extent that it is the special court established under the statute that should have taken the cognizance.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to rummage through Section 14 of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as under:

"14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more Districts:

Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for such Districts, the court of session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act:

Provided further that the courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act."

8. In view of the above, it is abundantly clear that the cases involving offences under Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are exclusively triable by a Special Court established under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act. The Special Court has jurisdiction to deal with the cases involving offences under Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 right from the initial stages implying direct cognizance.

9. There is a procedural irregularity in summoning of the petitioner, therefore the order dated 30.05.2016 is set aside. The

petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court alongwith the Investigating Officer on 04.08.2017 who shall pass appropriate orders.

10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

JULY 24, 2017 gr//