IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47429 of 2007 SANT SHARAN SINGH S/O LATE RAM SEVAK SINGH ---Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MUNSI BAITHA SON OF LATE SAKHICHAND BAITHA --- Opp.Parties. ----------- 06 27.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner, who is the accused of the complaint/F.I.R. being Vaishali Sadar, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe P.S. Case no. 02 of 2006, has filed the present application challenging the order dated 05.06.2007 whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, has taken cognizance on the basis of the charge sheet submitted in this case under diverse Sections of the Penal Code as also under Section 3 (i)(x) of the of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act ( herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance in so far as the same relates to Section 3(i) (x) of the Act is bad in law. It is submitted that the petitioner was laying his claim over the land being his ancestral land. He has referred to certain documents placed on record. It is contended that the complainant was also laying claim over the said land details of which have been set out in the complaint itself. It is contended that the occurrence had taken place because of the fact that the complainant tried to create an evidence of possession over the disputed land. It is thus submitted that the dominant purpose was to remove the possession over the land and when objected to the occurrence had taken place for which an F.I.R. 2 under diverse Sections of the Penal Code has been lodged. It is thus the contention of the petitioner that in view of the materials available on record no case under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act is made out and as such that part of the order taking cognizance is bad in law. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation constituting offence under Section 3(i)(x) is/are super addition as prior to lodging of the present complaint giving rise to the F.I.R. the complainant had lodged an information (Annexure-2) which was recorded as station diary entry wherein these allegations are absent. Considering the scope of the jurisdiction invoked by learned Court below, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he shall agitate all these issues/points at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. He therefore does not press this present application. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the application and supports the impugned order. The application is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate these issues/points at the appropriate stage of the proceeding The application is disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)