Sunil Bhadu And Ors vs State And Anr (2023/Rjjd/004559)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1618 Raj

[2023/RJJD/004559]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 421/2018

1. Sunil Bhadu

2. Rajendra Bhadu

3. Satveer, All the petitioners are R/o Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Ved Prakash S/o Shri Lalchand, By Caste Arora, R/o Kalibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. J. S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
                                Mr. Shardul Singh,
                                Mr. Ashok Kumar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment / Order

09/02/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present revision petition has been filed against the order

dated 14.11.2017 passed by Special Judge, Hanumangarh (SC/ST,

Removal of Atrocities Act) in Criminal Case (CRO) No.175/2017,

whereby, the cognizance was taken against the petitioners under

Sections 452, 323 & 427 IPC and under Section 3(1)(R) & (S) of

SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned

trial Court while taking cognizance under the SC/ST Act has relied

upon the omnibus statements of Ved Prakash, Rajkumar and

[2023/RJJD/004559] (2 of 3) [CRLR-421/2018]

Ramesh Kumar and other persons. He further submits that only

the offences under the Indian Penal Code is made out, however,

just to make the incident grave the offences under SC/ST Act has

been added. Learned counsel also submits that the police after

investigation has filed the Negative Report. He submits that even

in the cross F.I.R. filed by the complainant, the police has not

found the cases under the SC/ST Act having been made out

against the petitioners. The complainant was also not present at

the time of passing of the order dated 14.11.2017 and no protest

petition has been filed on his behalf. Learned counsel also submits

that the order of cognizance dated 14.11.2017 has been passed

without application of mind. He, therefore, prays that the present

revision petition may be allowed and the order taking cognizance

dated 14.11.2017 under the SC/ST Act may be quashed and set-

aside.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record including the impugned order dated

14.11.2017.

There is no dispute with respect to the incident having taken

place on 07.04.2017 and the complainant- Ved Prakash lodged an

FIR against the present petitioners. The statements of Ved

Prakash, Rajkumar and Ramesh Kumar, besides other statements

clearly shows that after having assaulted the complainant, Caste-

based-remarks(Jaati Suchak) were also passed against the

complainant in the abusive manner. Since the statements of Ved

Prakash, Rajkumar and Ramesh Kumar are the factum of

proceedings under the SC/ST Act has been found to be tenable

and, therefore, learned trial Court had rightly taken cognizance

[2023/RJJD/004559] (3 of 3) [CRLR-421/2018]

against the petitioners under the relevant section of the SC/ST Act

the order passed by the 14.11.2017, even otherwise, this Court is

prima-facie of the view that sufficient material is available on

record for taking cognizance against the petitioners under the SC/

ST Act and the petitioners will have liberty to raise all the defence

arguments at the time of framing of the charge for their discharge

the SC/ST Act.

In view of the discussions made above, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the

learned trial Court, the revision petition is, thus, dismissed. The

interim order granted by this Court also stands vacated.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 26-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)