IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.15575 OF 2008 HARIHAR DAS, SON OF LATE JAGU DAS, RESIDENT OF V ILLAGE KARARIA PHATE TOLA, POLICE STATION KOTWA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MAINA DEVI, WIFE OF RAJDEO PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARARIA PHATE TOLA, POLICE STATION KOTWA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN …………………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. M. N. PARBAT, ADVOCATE MR. SANJAY KUMAR JHA, ADVOCATE MR. PRAVEEN PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE MR. MRITUNJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. ********************* 2 18/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has been made accused for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 3(x) and 3 (xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken on 30.10.2008 and the petitioner was summoned to face trial. The short facts of the case are that the goat of the informant had entered into the field of the petitioner. It is said the petitioner came to his field and seized the goat and asked the informant to face a panchayati. It is said that the informant is said to have abused the informant by calling her by her caste name. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that merely by using the caste name, no offence has been made out under the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The fact would disclose that no one else was present at the time when the occurrence is said to have taken place. Section 3(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act specifically requires that the insult or intimidation should be in public view. I, therefore, find that infact no offence has been made out under Sections 3(x) & 3(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. My view is supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Anirudh Rai vs. The State of Bihar & Another, reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 267. The case of the informant is that it was her goat that had entered into the field and was destroying the crops. This being the position, it cannot be said that there was any provocation by the petitioner rather it appears that the entry of the goat in the field had led to a dispute between the parties. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code envisages that whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to 3 break the public peace, or to break the public tranquility, or to commit any offence is said to be guilty under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients envisages that there should be an intention to insult, that such insult should be to provoke a person to do an act, which would lead to disrupting the public peace. From the facts of this case, this Court finds that the abuses were not such that would lead the informant to do an act which would lead to disturbing the public peace. I, therefore, find that infact the facts do not constitute an offence so as to attract the ingredients of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is with respect to the punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code defines Criminal Intimidation. The ingredients of Criminal Intimidation envisage that there will be an intention to cause injury to a person, his reputation, his property or also cause injury to a person or reputation of any one in whom the person is interested with an intend to cause harm to that person or to cause that person to do an act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, 4 commits criminal intimidation. This case obviously does not come within the four corners of the defining section and it cannot be said that an offence is made out under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts as narrated in the First Information Report do not constitute an offence for which cognizance has been taken and, therefore, this case would come within the exceptions of Bhajan lal’s case reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335. Accordingly, the order dated 30.10.2007 passed in Kotwa Police Station Case No. 43 of 2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari is quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)