CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 127 CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.08.2026 KULDIP KAUR AND OTHERS ...Petitioners VERSUS BOOTA SINGH ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of complaint No. 04 dated 14.02.2018 titled Boota Singh Vs. Kuldeep Kaur an Others and summoning order dated 15.09.2021 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib vide which petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 3 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 506, 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that order dated 15.09.2021 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib summoning the petitioners to face trial under Sections 3 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘SC/ST Act, 1989’) and Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC was without jurisdiction, in view of Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) -2- according to which cognizance can only be taken by the Special Judge/Court. It is argued that taking of cognizance and passing summoning order by learned Magistrate was beyond his jurisdiction and on this sole ground, the complaint and the summoning order deserved to be quashed. It is urged that the complaint for commission of offence under Sections 3 of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC could only have been instituted before the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court (1) 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. (2) It shall be the duty of the State Government to establish adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under this Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as possible. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) -3- (3) In every trial in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that when the trial relates to an offence under this Act, the trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.” 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Others 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 559 considered the question whether entire criminal proceedings are vitiated in a complaint when cognizance of an offence under the SC/ST Act, 1989 is taken by a Magistrate and thereafter the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. While noticing the Legislative history of Section 14 of SC/ST Act, 1989, the Apex Court observed as under: 9.1. On fair reading of Sections 207, 209 and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and insertion of proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act by Act No.1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016, we are of the opinion that on the aforesaid ground the entire criminal proceedings cannot be said to have been vitiated. Second proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act which has been inserted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016 confers power upon the Special Court so established or specified for the purpose of AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) -4- providing for speedy trial also shall have the power to directly take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act. Considering the object and purpose of insertion of proviso to Section 14, it cannot be said that it is not in conflict with the Sections 193, 207 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It cannot be said that it takes away jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance and thereafter to commit the case to the Special Court for trial for the offences under the Atrocities Act. Merely because, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and thereafter the trial / case has been committed to Special Court established for the purpose of providing for speedy trial, it cannot be said that entire criminal proceedings including FIR and charge- sheet etc. are vitiated and on the aforesaid ground entire criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (x) of the Atrocities Act are to be quashed and set aside. It may be noted that in view of insertion of proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act and considering the object and purpose, for which, the proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act has been inserted i.e. for the purpose of providing for speedy trial and the object and purpose stated herein above, it is advisable that the Court so established or specified in exercise of powers under Section14, for the purpose of providing for speedy trial directly take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act. But at the same time, as AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) -5- observed herein above, merely on the ground that cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act is not taken directly by the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be said to have been vitiated and cannot be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate after insertion of second proviso to Section 14 which confers powers upon the Special Court also to directly take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act and thereafter case is committed to the Special Court / Court of Session. 9.2. In support of the above conclusion, the words used in second proviso to Section 14 are required to be considered minutely. The words used are “Court so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of the offences under this Court”. The word “only” is conspicuously missing. If the intention of the legislature would have to confer the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act exclusively with the Special Court, in that case, the wording should have been “that the Court so established or specified only shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act. Therefore, merely because now further and additional powers have been given to the Special Court also to take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act and in the present case merely because the cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) -6- under the Atrocities Act and thereafter the case has been committed to the learned Special Court, it cannot be said that entire criminal proceedings have been vitiated and same are required to be quashed and set aside.” 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that unless and until the rights which flow from Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 are affected, the accused cannot make any grievance and it cannot be said that by taking of cognizance by learned Magistrate for the offences under the SC/ST Act, 1989, and commiting the case to the Court of Sessions, he is prejudiced. It was further observed as under: “12. Even considering Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if any Magistrate not empowered by the law to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 190, takes cognizance, such irregularities do not vitiate proceedings. At the most, it can be said to be irregular proceedings for which, it does not vitiate the proceedings. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the view taken by the High Court that as in the present case the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under the Atrocities Act and thereafter the case is committed to the learned Special Court and therefore, entire criminal proceedings are vitiated, cannot be accepted and is unsustainable. If on the aforesaid ground entire criminal proceedings are quashed, in that case, it will be given a premium to an accused who is alleged to have committed the AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9840-2022 (O&M) -7- offence under the Atrocities Act. Assuming for the sake of argument that the procedure adopted is irregular, in that case, why should victim who belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community be made to suffer.” 5. It is, thus manifest, that irrespective of Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib could have taken cognizance in the case involving offence under the SC/ST Act, 1989. The absence of the word ‘only’ in proviso to Section 14(1) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, makes it abundantly clear that the Legislature did not intend to confer jurisdiction only on the Special Court established under the Act. The summoning order is not vitiated on account of cognizance taken by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and process issued against the petitioners under the SC/ST Act, 1989. After taking cognizance, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class can commit the case to the Special Court. There is no palpable error or perversity in the impugned summoning order dated 15.09.2021 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib. 6. No other point was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petition, being, bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) August 26, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.08.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document