IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45475 of 2010 1. Bishwanath Mehta, son of Sonai Mehta 2. Prayag Kumar Mehta, son of Bishwanath Mehta 3. Pankaj Kumar Mehta, son of Bishwanath Mehta Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Agrwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Bipin Kumar, A.P.P. ----------- 3 20.10.2011 Petitioners have filed instant petition for quashing of order dated 01-09-2010 passed by Sri S.K. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Araria in Complaint Case No.1843(c) of 2010 (Santi Devi Versus Bishwanath Mehta) whereby and whereunder petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 379, 427 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(X) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act. Contention on behalf of the petitioners is that whatever allegation has been levelled in the complaint petition, that has not been supported by the complainant herself during the course of her examination on solemn affirmation. Taking through the S.A. learned counsel for petitioners submits that apart from infirmities and inconsistencies visible in between complaint petition and S.A., the complainant had failed to disclose that the occurrence whatever been alleged, have ever taken place in presence of witnesses. Also submitted that as per disclosure, the accused persons came inside her house assaulted and during course thereof, called her by caste name which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not attract any of the provision of SC/ST (P.A) Act and therefore summoning of petitioner under the aforesaid section is not at all maintainable. 2 At the other hand the learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that when the learned Magistrate proceed to inquire into the matter under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., it will be presumed that he had already taken cognizance and only to ascertain a prima facie case as well as the culprits, he performs and conduct the inquiry. The intention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to guide the court and further come in toe with him to scrutinize the statement of the witnesses meticulously like a trial court. The petitioners have themselves placed statement of witnesses who have categorically stated their presence during course of occurrence and further they have stated that in their presence, the accused persons uttered and abuse the complainant by her caste name. Complainant happens to be a rustic lady, cannot be expected to narrate a parrot story. Moreover, at the present juncture only a prima facie case has to be looked into and that power has properly been exercised by the learned lower court. Therefore, I see no ground to concur with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Consequent thereupon petition is rejected. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)