Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18285 of 2010 ====================================================== Suraj Prasad Srivastava & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlendu Shekhar Thakur, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 4 03-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. In spite of having been noticed, O.P. No.2 failed to respond. 3. A written report was submitted by O.P. No.2, Jayawanti Devi on 21.10.2008 disclosing therein that while she was staying in her courtyard, her neighbours Suraj Prasad Srivastava, Ravi Prasad Srivastava and Nirmal Prasad Srivastave (petitioners) threw mud upon her from their house. On her protest, all of them abused her calling her caste name. Then thereafter, all came down inside her house, brutally assaulted, took away her ornaments and again abused. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Bhagalpur Sadar (SC ST) P.S. Case No. 79 of 2008 was registered under [STATUTE] as well as 3(1) (x) Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18285 of 2010 (4) dt.03-05-2012 2 (xi) SC ST (P.A) Act, 1989 followed with investigation which ultimately concluded in submission of final report. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur differing therefrom took cognizance and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 30.03.2010, hence arose a cause for filing the instant petition. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there happens to be no application of Section 3(1) (x) S.C S.T (P.A) Act because of the fact that from the written report itself the occurrence so alleged was not within the public view. Even in worst case, the first part of occurrence took place amongst them while they both were in their respective houses and so far second part is concerned, that was inside the courtyard and so it was not within the public view. With regard to application of Section 3(1) (xi) is concerned, that has purposely been introduced by the informant. Then submitted that the real fact is that there happens to be longstanding enmity in between house owner of the informant, Mahendra Sah with the petitioners and it is Mahendra Sah who has managed the complainant only to terrorize, tease the petitioners on the pretext that she happens to be a member of scheduled caste. 6. The aforesaid theme has been collected by the investigating authority during course of investigation and on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18285 of 2010 (4) dt.03-05-2012 3 account thereof final report was submitted. It has further been submitted that criminal prosecution should not be allowed to become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous litigants to satisfy their personal grudge and vendetta and in the aforesaid back ground in a decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Hariyana & Ors. Versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. quashing of proceeding has been permitted in case where it comes within the parameter so prescribed therein. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that animosity with Mahendra Sah may be a ground which could be taking up during course of trial. So far present aspect is concerned learned lower court was will within its domain wherein differing from the conclusion so submitted by the investigating authority took cognizance and summoned the petitioners on the basis of the materials coming out from the case dairy itself. However, fairly submitted that there happens to be non application of Section 3(1) (x) of the SC ST (P.A) Act. 8. So far empowerment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner is concerned, there is no controversy over it. After submission of police report learned Magistrate has go three options available at his end, (a) either accept, (b) differ there-from (c) direct for further Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18285 of 2010 (4) dt.03-05-2012 4 investigation and that has been settled at rest by catena of decisions. Therefore, the approach of the Chief Judicial Magistrate happens to be in accordance with law. 9. With regard to application of Section certainly from the disclosure coming out from the written report it is evident that application of Section 3(1) (x) of SC ST (P.A.) Act is not at all attracted. So, for the present the order impugned to that extent appears to be bad. Consequent thereupon the order impugned is interfered with to that extent and the petition is allowed accordingly to that extent. 10. With the aforesaid finding, the instant petition is disposed of. perwez./- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.