IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34832 of 2007 1.SATYENDRA KUMAR RAI, Son of Late Ram Chandra Rai, resident of Sono, P.O. Sono, P.S. Sono, District Jamui. 2.Paritosh Kumar, Son of Deep Narayan Yadav, Clerk, Sono Block, P.S. Sono, District Jamui. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Dilip Kumar Paswan, Head Clerk, Sono Block, P.S. Sono, District Jamui. ----------- 5 16-02-2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The impugned order taking cognizance for offence under sections 109, 353, 506 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the S.C./S.T. Act has been sought to assailed on various grounds, but counsel for the petitioners would ultimately confine his submission only to the allegation under SC/ST Act. He would in this regard submit that by reading of the F.I.R. itself it would be clear that the alleged offence under SC/ST Act, if any, was committed in the official quarter of petitioner no.2 which cannot be held in public view. Reliance in this connection has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Brahmedeo Jha & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors’ reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 493. In the opinion of this Court, the allegation under section 3/4 of the SC/ST Act in the F.I.R. is in two parts, one where it is said that the petitioners while sitting in the house of petitioner no.2 had abused and threatened the petitioner. Thereafter, in the said F.I.R. it has been also specifically alleged that petitioner no.1 had again threatened the Informant by asking 2 him to behave only as borned Harijan. This seems to be done in the public view, inasmuch as, it is said that the said utterance by the petitioners was made in presence of one Mahesh Prasad Singh, Industrial Extension Officer. This Court would not however put its final word on this aspect as also on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Mahesh Prasad Singh is said to have not supported this part of the allegation in course of investigation, which if true can at best be a circumstance for not framing charge against the petitioners u/s 3/4 S.C./S.T. Act. At present on the basis of First Information Report at least it cannot be said that there is no allegation of committing offence under SC/ST Act in public view against the petitioners inasmuch as such materials can definitely be looked into at the time of framing of charge. The case of Brahmdeo Jha (Supra) is entirely different on the facts of this case as there was no two possible view that the solitary allegation as with regard to calling the names had taken place in the court yard of the Informant, which under no circumstances held to be in a public place. The facts being absolutely distinguishable there would be no question of applicability of such judgment in the facts of present case. That being so, this application is dismissed with an observation that if the petitioners would raise this question at the time of framing of charge the same will be looked into by the court below and decided strictly in accordance with law. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)