Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1754 of 2011 (3) dt.30-03-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1754 of 2011 ====================================================== Rohit Paswan, son of Late Sita Ram Paswan, resident of Manihari Hat Tola, P.S.-Manihari, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Chanda Rani, wife of Sri Shiv Kumar, resident of village-Bayang, PS-Ramgarh, District-Hajaribagh, Jharkhand, .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 30-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The present case is arising from Complaint Case No. 727/2007 by which the court below has taken cognizance for offences under [STATUTE] and also under Section 3/4 (i) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The order of cognizance was challenged before the Sessions Court in Cr. Revision No. 39/2010. The Sessions Court after examining the complaint petition including solemn affirmation has come to a finding that the court of Magistrate has fallen in error in taking cognizance under Section 3 / 4 (i) (x) of SC/ST Act. However, he has allowed the Magistrate to continue Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1754 of 2011 (3) dt.30-03-2012 the proceeding under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner has a grievance that the complaint petition as well as all the statement including the solemn affirmation clearly discloses offence under the SC/ST Act. The Sessions Court has considered the complaint petition including the solemn affirmation of the complaint where only the caste name has been used and whereas in the complaint petition abusive language with the caste name has been used but the court has taken into consideration the solemn affirmation and on that basis found that no case is made out under Section 3/4 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act. However, the petitioner has a grievance that the Sessions Court should not pass the order limiting the case only to the extent of [STATUTE] . The argument of the petitioner appears to be from attractive but in fact if the court has come to a conclusion that no case is made out under the SC/ST Act, he has rightly recorded that finding. However, he should not have given his finding about the prima facie case as made out only in [STATUTE] . This Court is giving a liberty to the petitioner if, in the course of trial, material comes the petitioner will be at liberty to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1754 of 2011 (3) dt.30-03-2012 file application for modification of the charge and court below will pass order in accordance with law. I do not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. . Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.