Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27773 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Jag Ram S/O Late Maina Ram, R/O Mohalla- Railway Moshafirkhana, P.S.- Railthana Muzaffarpur, Distt.- Muzzarfarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Diwakar Singh S/O Late Ramashish Singh, R/O Vill.- Dharampur, P.S.- Vaishali, Distt.- Vaishali At Present At Quarter F Road A4/58/Colony/Mohalla- Azad Market, Telco Colony P.S.- Telco, Distt.- East Singbhoom(Jamsedpur) 3. Bindeshwar Singh S/O Late Ramashish Singh R/O Vill.- Dharampur, P.S.- Vaishali, Distt.- Vaishali 4. Shanti Devi W/O Diwakar Singh R/O Vill.- Dharampur, P.S.- Vaishali, Distt.- Vaishali At Present At Quarter F Road A4/58/Colony/Mohalla- Azad Market, Telco Colony P.S.- Telco, Distt.- East Sinngbhoom(Jamsedpur) 5. Ragini Kumari @ Soni Diwakar D/O Diwakar Singh, R/O Vill.- Dharampur, P.S.- Vaishali, Distt.- Vaishali At Present At Quarter F Road A4/58/Colony/Mohalla- Azad Market, Telco Colony P.S.- Telco, Distt.- East Sinngbhoom(Jamsedpur). .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukul Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 4 & 5 : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No. 3 and Mr. R.V. Singh, Advs. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 12-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is complainant who is aggrieved by order dated 6.4.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 633/2000, Tr. No. 291/2011. A complaint case was filed by the petitioner vide Complaint Case No. 633 of 2000 where the opposite parties have been arrayed an accused making an allegation that he was waiting Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27773 of 2011 (3) dt.12-10-2012 2 / 3 2 for a passenger, by the time, accused respondent called him and asked to carry him to the railway station. The complainant replied that he had to take another customer which agitated them and they started hurling abuses by taking his caste name and also assaulted him with fists and slaps and the persons around the incident came forward and saved him. At the same time witnesses caught hold these accused opposite parties and they asked their name and address and after that the case was filed. The court below did not take cognizance under SC/ST Act rather the cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . It appears that the complainant-petitioner filed a petition on 14.2.2003 for addition of Section SC/ST Act but same remained pending. When the case reached to the final stage, the petitioner all on a sudden woke up and pressed the petition on 14.2.2003. The court below rejected the application which has been challenged by the present petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below without any reasonable ground rejected the application dated 14.2.2003 and without considering the same on merit. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the court below was required to test the application on its merit but should not have rejected merely on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27773 of 2011 (3) dt.12-10-2012 3 / 3 3 the ground of delay. The counsel for the opposite party has submitted that this case is completely a malicious prosecution, as it has been filed at the instance of Ex husband of his daughter in order to exert pressure on them so that her daughter may withdraw the claim of Rs. 50,000/- which has been awarded by the court below. It appears from the record that the petitioner did not challenge the order of cognizance. When the court below has refused to take cognizance under section SC/ST Act then he ought to have moved before the higher Court but instead of that he filed an application on 14.2.2003 and remained pending. When case reached to final stage, the complainant pressed the petition with a view to drag the litigation. This Court is not discussing the case on merit, but this Court does not find any illegality in the order of court below. 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.