IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.468 of 2009 SANJEEV SINGH & ORS . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . For the Petitioners: Ashutosh Ranjan Panday, Adv. Dr. Anshuman Rakesh Narayan Singh, Adv. Ramanuj Tiwary, Adv. For the State : A.P.P. ----------- 4/ 06/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No.2 despite valid service of notice. The petitioners assail the order of cognizance dated 22.12.2007 under Sections- 323, 342 and 504 of Indian Penal Code read with Section-3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. in Complaint Case No.69/07/T.R. No.2910/07 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Madhubani. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 lodged an F.I.R. on 17.1.2007 registered as Basopatti P.S. Case No.6/07 against seven named accused who were attempting to unlawfully interfere with the lands of the petitioner when he was having the measurement done in presence of the police. To save their skin, the O.P. No.2 has been set up by them when he filed a 2 complaint case the next day i.e. 18.1.2007 with regard to an alleged occurrence of 17.1.2007. There is no statement in the complaint what steps were taken by O.P. No.2 for protection of his person and property on 17.1.2007 when the occurrence took place at 8.00 a.m. according to him and the complaint mentions no reasons why he did not go to the police immediately. The submission therefore is that the allegations in the complaint case have been made only to vent ire by vendetta against the petitioners for having filed Basopatti P.S. Case No.6/07. The complaint case was motivated by the design to keep the petitioners involved in protecting themselves against the allegations in the complaint case so as to make it difficult for them to pursue the police case filed by them appropriately. Supporting the argument of a false implication, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the face of the allegations the provisions of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has no application as according to the complainant himself he has been abused by his caste name not in a public place, in public view, but at the house of one Manju Singh, the mother of the petitioners. The refusal of the O.P. No.2 to appear 3 combined with the nature of the allegations jointly of using of vague words without any description of the nature of the words when they allegedly asked the O.P. No.2 to go away, this Court is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint case are basically in defence to the institution of Basopatti P.S. Case No.6/07. To allow the complaint case to continue shall clearly be an abuse of the process of the Court. The entire proceedings in complaint case is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)