IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30329 of 2009 1. Anil Yadav, 2. Ramesh Yadav, both sons of Lakhan Yadav, 3. Dadan Singh Yadav, son of Radha Singh Yadav, 4. Surendra Yadav, son of Hira Yadav, all residents of village Dhankarha, PS Sasaram Mufassil, Dist. Rohtas – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Yugesh Pasi, son of Late Lakhan Pasi, village Dhaudau (Marai Tola) PS Sasaram Mufassil, Dist. Rohtas – opposite parties. 4 18.1.2010 This application has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe PS (Rohtas) Case No. 29/2008 in which the petitioners have been made accused for the offences under sections 147, 148, 326, 435, 436, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act and sections 3 (i), (iii) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as „the SC/ST Act‟). The petitioners are aggrieved with respect to the allegations under the SC/ST Act as according to them there is no allegation made out in the F.I.R. which would suggest that the offence has been committed under the said Act. In the F.I.R. it has been said that the petitioners have abused the informant and the ladies, and have also tired to molest them. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it is said that petitioners are guilty of the offences under the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations that the ladies were abused or that they were molested is vague and in fact does not constitute the ingredients of section 3(i), (iii) and (x) of the SC/ST Act. The relevant section 3 of the Act reads 2 as follows : “3. Punishment for offences of atrocities – (1) whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – (i) forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance, (iii) forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parade him naked or with painted face or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human dignity; (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.” On plain reading of the F.I.R. it is evident that sub- section (i) of section 3 of the Act does not apply to the facts of this case. As far as sub-section (iii) is concerned, there is no allegation that the petitioners tried to remove the clothes or committed any act which comes within the purview of sub-section (iii) of section 3 of the Act. Sub-section (x), on the other hand, envisages that the person who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would intimidate or humiliate a person of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as far as this aspect is concerned, there is just a vague allegation that the petitioners abused the informant and his family members. 3 There is no allegation that they took the name of caste or tribe or used language which was derogatory to the persons concerned while hurling alleged abuses. Where the allegation is of such vague nature, it cannot come within the purview of sub-section (x) of section 3 of the Act. In the circumstances I find that on mere perusal of the F.I.R. no offence is made out under section 3 (i), (iii) and (x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. According the F.I.R. in question is hereby quashed only to extent mentioned aforesaid. The F.I.R. is maintainable with respect to offences under Sections 147, 148, 326, 435, 436, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)