Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13559 of 2010 (4) dt.07-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13559 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Nandlal Thakur, S/O Shatadeo Thakur 2. Ramnath Thakur, S/O Shatadeo Thakur Both resident of village Ajagrawa P.S. – Pakaridayal Dist-East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ravindra Ram, S/O-Lagan Ram resident of village Ajagarawa P.S. Pakaridayal Dist-East Champaran .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 07-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. . None appears on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. In my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 08.03.2010 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Trial No. 02 of 2010 arising out of Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 by which and whereunder he rejected the petition dated 19.02.2010 filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 228 (i) (a) of Cr.P.C. holding that there was sufficient ground for presumption that petitioners committed Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13559 of 2010 (4) dt.07-08-2012 the offences under Sections 3(i) (x) of S.C S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act as well as other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2 gave a written report to officer in charge of Pakaridayal Police Station district-Motihari alleging therein that while his wife was cooking meal in her home, petitioners and other first information report named accused entered into his house and assaulted the informant’s wife uttering her caste name and after that she was dragged to the courtyard of the aforesaid house and when informant came to her rescue, he was also humiliated by the petitioners and other accused by calling his caste name. The reason behind the alleged occurrence was said to be a dispute regarding a passage. It appears that after investigation, police submitted charge sheet and cognizance of the offences under [STATUTE] and 3(i) (x) of S.C S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act was taken in usual way and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. It would appear from the impugned order that on 19.02.2010, a petition under Section 228 (i) (a) of Cr.P.C. was filed before learned special court praying therein that no case Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13559 of 2010 (4) dt.07-08-2012 under Section 3(i) (x) of S.C S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out but learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari rejected the aforesaid petition passing the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 in the manner as stated above. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that according to prosecution case itself, the entire occurrence took place inside the house of the informant and, therefore, the application of Section 3(i) (x) of S.C S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act is doubtful. It is further contended by him that to attract the above stated provision, the occurrence must have taken place in full public view which is lacking in the present case. To fortify the above stated contention, he cited a decision reported in 2010 (2) BLJ Patna High Court 259 in which it has been held by this Court that the insult or intimidation should be in public view. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order arguing that a clear cut case under Section 3(i) (x) of S.C S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the entire occurrence took place in the house of the informant and at the time of the alleged occurrence none was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13559 of 2010 (4) dt.07-08-2012 present in the house of the informant. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been brought into existence with an intent to protect the honour and dignity of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community and if an offence is committed with the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community with an intent to humiliate them, the aforesaid humiliation must be in public view because if the humiliation does not take place in public view, it would be hard to believe that the said humiliation has been done with an intent to lower down the prestige and dignity of member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community. Therefore, I do agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the humiliation must be in full public view. So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly, the alleged assault as well as abuse were made inside the house of the informant and, therefore, I do agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the application of provision of S.C. S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act is completely lacking in the present case. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this quashing petition is allowed and accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13559 of 2010 (4) dt.07-08-2012 Champaran, Motihari in Trial No. 02 of 2010 arising out of Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 is quashed and the matter is sent back to the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari with direction to him to pass a fresh order on the petition dated 19.02.2010 filed on behalf of the petitioners. In the aforesaid manner, this petition stands disposed off.

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.