IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3245 of 2008 ARCHANA SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6/ 07-10-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Complaint Case No. 2068 of 2008 was filed by Opposite Party No.2 against the petitioners on 11.09.2002 making allegations under sections 323, 354, 427, 504, 379, 147, 148 and 149 of the Penal Code in addition to section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocity ) Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act” . This was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short “the Code”) and thereafter the police registered a case as Ahiapur P.S. Case No. 280 of 2002. The Police after investigation submitted a final report that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature and the allegations primarily were levelled in an ongoing dispute with regard to the properties. The matter then proceeded on a protest petition which was registered as Complaint Case No. 759 of 2007/ Trial No. 2439 of 2007 when cognizance was taken under sections 147, 504 of the Penal Code and Section 3(1) (X) of the Act. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Police investigated the matter and submitted a final report that there was a civil dispute with regard to properties between the parties, there was no justification for the impugned order and the taking cognizance on the same facts between the parties was not sustainable. He relies upon an order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.55515 of 2006 arising out of a similar complaint case 2153 of 2004, sent for investigation undersection 156(3), in which also final form for a civil dispute was submitted, whereafter cognizance came to be taken on a protest petition. The serious property dispute between the parties with regard to lands was urged questioning that the criminal prosecution was an abuse of the process of law. A Bench of this Court while quashing the criminal prosecution of the petitioner held as follows:- “Due regard being had to the fact that the police has repeatedly been reporting the allegations to be of civil nature the court below should have refrained from taking cognizance.” Opposing the application learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 from his counter affidavit urged that there were at least 15 cases going on between the parties with regard to lands, details whereof are mentioned in - 3 - paragraph 13 of the affidavit. The reasoning given by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 55515 of 2006 between the same parties applies with equal force to the present case also in view of the admitted pendency of the civil dispute, including Title Suit between the parties and the findings of the police of civil nature of dispute. Once police report of a civil dispute was submitted, there was no justification for an order of cognizance on the same allegations in pursuance of a protest petition only. Section 3 1 (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act makes it an offence if the offending words are mentioned in a place of public view. Whether members of the public were present or not is irrelevant. But when the allegations themselves state of the utterance at the house of the opposite party no.2, on the face of the allegations no offence is made out. A house is private territory and cannot be held to be a place in public view. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is, therefore, satisfied that there is a serious dispute of civil nature between the parties going on and the submission of the final report of the police accordingly, there was justification for taking cognizance against the - 4 - petitioners on a protest-cum-complaint case on the same allegation. It would be clearly an abuse of the process of law. In view of the discussion, aforesaid, with regard to inapplicability of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocity ) Act on the face of the allegation made out in the complaint, the prosecution of the petitioners there under is also not sustainable. The application is allowed. The entire prosecution of the petitioner, including the order taking cognizance in complaint case No. 759 of 2007, corresponding to Trial No. 2439 of 2009, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur is hereby quashed. ( Navin Sinha, J ) BTiwary/