AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
This case was listed/ supposed to be listed before the Lawazima Board of the Registrar General for passing an order in respect of the defects, pointed out by the office.
Considering the pandemic situation where the Court has minimized the footfall of the lawyers and their Clerks in the Court, this court felt proper to get all the cases listed before this Court so that the defects can be looked into at this stage only. Thus, this case is listed today before this Court directly.
The defects stand ignored for the present.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing on merits.
Heard Mr. Chandrajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, at length.
The petitioner being the complaint is aggrieved by the part of the order dated 25.09.2018, wherein cognizance has been taken and summon has been issued.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance has not been taken under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though there are sufficient materials to take cognizance. He further submits that some of the persons, whose name figured in the complaint have not been summoned. He prays that the court below be directed to take cognizance under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and be also be directed to issued summon against all the persons named as accused.
I think that the prayer made by the petitioner, in this application, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is unfounded. There are remedies available to the petitioner in Cr. P.C. If during trial any material comes against the persons, those who have not been summoned, the petitioner can very well invoke the provision of Cr.P.C. Further, the charge at any point of time can be altered. The petitioner can also take all these pointes at the time of framing of charge.
Considering aforesaid position of law, I am not inclined to entertain this application at this stage. Thus, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the liberty is reserved with the petitioner.