Allowed

Sri Gopal Soni and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2014CRLMP/420/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to try or order warrant trial for offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which are triable by a Special Court. The arrest warrant was quashed and the case directed to be committed to the Special Court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing warrant trial and arrest warrant was set aside. The case was directed to be committed to the Special Court under Section 14 of the Act.

Sri Gopal Soni and Anr. Vs State and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.420/2008

¶4

Sri Gopal Soni & Anr.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 10/11/2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr. V.R. Bajwa, for petitioner/s Mr. Sunit Awasthi, for complainant

¶9

¶10

By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 21.02.2008 wherein cognizance of the offence was taken followed by a direction for holding warrant trial and accordingly warrant of arrest was issued to secure presence of the accusedpetitioners.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that court below took cognizance of offence under Sections 447, 427, 323 IPC apart from Section 3(i)(v)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short “the Act” ). It was on submission of adverse final report after investigation. An offence under Section 3 of the Act is triable by the Special Court thus the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to direct for warrant trial so as issuance of warrant of arrest. It should have committed the case for trial by the special court. In view of above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it has been passed without competence and jurisdiction of the court.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent-complainant is fair enough to admit that once the cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 3(i)(v)(x) of the Act, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to try it as it is triable by the Special Court as per Section 14 of the Act. The prayer is accordingly made to interfere in the impugned order only to the extent of trial by the court below and issuance of warrant as a consequence thereof.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶15

A challenge to the order dated 21.02.2008 has been made on many grounds. The counsel for the petitioner has however pressed on two issues. It is as to whether trial of the offence under Section 3 (i)(v)(x) of the Act can be by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and secondly as to whether warrant of arrest could have been issued in a case where it is not triable by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶16

It is not disputed that for an offence under Section 3(i)(v)(x) of the Act, trial can be by the Special Court and not by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. In view of above, a direction for warrant trial by the Magistrate court is not legal. In absence of competence to try the offence under Section 3(i)(v)(x) of the Act, issuance of warrant of arrest is also illegal. The court below should have committed the case for its trial by the special court. For committing the offence, presence of the accused could be secured either by summons or bailable warrant looking to the nature of allegation. In view of above, impugned order is interfered to the extent of direction for trial by the

¶17

¶18

court below so as issuance of warrant of arrest. It is without interfering in the order of cognizance. The court below is directed to commit the case and send it to the Special Court as provided under Section 14 of the Act. The court below is directed to secure presence of the accused either by summons or bailable warrant looking to the facts of this case. The order for it may be passed afresh but to the extent of warrant trial by the court below and issuance of warrant of arrest, the impugned order is set aside with the direction for passing appropriate order to commit the case.

¶19

The criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed with the direction aforesaid.

¶20

FRBOHRA/420CMP2008.doc Certificate:

¶21

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶22

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, Sr. P.A.

Sri Gopal Soni and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gopal Soni and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kajod Mal Meena Vs Registrar Co. Oper Societies andORS

B N Oil Industries Vs J M a C T and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Faujdar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajesh Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Nannu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Atar Singh Utarda and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.