Remanded

N.Mohini@Mohin Dora v. State

Orissa HC13 May 2022CRLMC/3847/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order where a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under the POA Act before the 2016 amendment. The Court held that pre-amendment, the Magistrate could not take cognizance but must commit the case to the Special Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15th July 2011 passed by SDJM, Khurda taking cognizance under Section 3 POA Act is set aside and matter remanded to proceed afresh.

N.Mohini@Mohin Dora Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.3847 of 2011

¶3

N. Mohini@ Mohin Dora and others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Prabodh Kumar Patnaik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Orissa and another Opposite Parties Mr. S.N. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER

Order No.

13.05.2022

The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 15^th July 2011, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda (SDJM) taking cognizance of the offences, inter alia under Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 (POA Act) in ICC Case No.401 of 2010. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 28^th November 2011, this Court granted a stay of further proceedings in the aforementioned case before the S.D.J.M., Khurda.

¶14

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. As explained by the Supreme Court of India in Gangula Ashok and another v. State of A.P. 2000 CRI. L. J. 819 (SC), even the special Court under the POA Act cannot straightaway take cognizance. The case has to be committed to it by a Magistrate and then the

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Special Court has to apply its mind on the question of taking cognizance.

¶17

Mr. S.N. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent decision in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 974, where the Supreme Court has explained the position that existed prior to the amendment to the POA Act 2016 and the position thereafter.

¶18

On perusal of both the decisions, it appears to the Court that in the pre-amendment stage, which is what the present case is about, the Magistrate could not have straightaway taken cognizance of an offence under the POA Act. The Magistrate would have had to commit the case to the Special Court, which would then consider the question of taking cognizance. Post the amendment to Section 14, as explained by the Supreme Court in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya ( supra ) it is open to the Magistrate to take cognizance and then commit the case to the Special Court.

¶19

In the present case, since the situation is pre-amendment, in terms of the decision, the impugned order dated 15^th July 2011passed by the SDJM taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the POA Act is hereby set aside and to that extent, the matter is remanded to the SDJM, Khurda to be proceed with afresh, vis-à-vis the said offence, in accordance with law.

¶20

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

This order be delivered forthwith to the concerned Court of the S.D.J.M., Khurda through a Special Messenger.

¶23

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶24

S. Behera

¶25

Page 3 of 3

N.Mohini@Mohin Dora v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Mohini@Mohin Dora v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalia Panigrahi Vs State

Arati Nayak Vs State

Arati Nayak Vs State

Santosh Ku.Pradhan Vs State

Subash Ch.Panda Buil Vs State

Bichitra Nath Vs State