Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12791 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Binod Mandal S/O Sri Shiv Narayan Mandal @ Debal Mandal Resident Of Village- Bariyahi, P.S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. 2. Bhushan Mandal S/O Debal Mandal Resident Of Village- Bariyahi, P.S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. 3. Rajendra Mandal S/O Debal Mandal Resident Of Village- Bariyahi, P.S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. 4. Bechan Mandal S/O Late Bindeshwari Mandal Resident Of Village- Bariyahi, P.S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rajeev Baitha S/O Deo Narayan Baitha Resident Of Village- Bariyahi, P.S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. R.C. Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh For the State : Mr. A.H.M. Rahman, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 02. 27-03-2012 Heard Mr. R.C. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 12.12.2011, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in a case arising from Murliganj P.S. Case No. 88 of 2011, G.R. No. 816 of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)X of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12791 of 2012 (2) dt.27-03-2012 2 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the ‘SC/ST Act) and [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the allegation set out in the F.I.R. submits that a bare perusal of the allegations set out thereunder manifests that no offence punishable under the SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioners inasmuch as the allegations do not satisfy the parameters as stipulated under the provisions of Section 3(1) X of the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel very fairly submits that he does not question the order taking cognizance insofar as it relates to the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code rather the grievance of the petitioners is restricted to the order of the learned Magistrate whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to the provisions of Section 3(1) X of the SC/ST Act, submits that there are certain prerequisites which requires to be satisfied before a court takes cognizance of the offences punishable under the said Act on an allegation set out by a member of the reserved community. It is stated that a perusal of the complaint shows that neither the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12791 of 2012 (2) dt.27-03-2012 3 informant has mentioned that the accused belonged to the community other than the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or that the offence alleged took place in full public view as required under Clause X of Section 3(1) of the said Act. It is further submitted that on the contrary the informant himself has stated that the incident took place in his Angan and which makes it clear that the alleged occurrence certainly did not take place in full public view. He thus submits that a mere allegation that the informant was abused by taking his caste name with a view to insult him in the name of his caste, is not sufficient to proceed against the accused unless the parameters to constitute an offence under the said Act are fully satisfied. It is submitted that the provisions of the Act being stringent, the procedures have to be very strictly construed before a Magistrate proceeds to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the said Act and the same cannot be done in a routine manner. It is thus submitted that the order taking cognizance insofar as it relates to the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act is not sustainable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, this Court is of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12791 of 2012 (2) dt.27-03-2012 4 opinion that the issue raised by the petitioners can well be raised by them at the stage of framing of charge and which shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, 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.