IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.47567 of 2008 1. Parmeshwar Rai, son of Majju Rai. 2. Arun Rai, son of Parmeshwar Rai. Both residents of Village-Varunarsalpur, P.S. Sarairanjan, P.O. Kishunpur Yusuf, District-Samastipur. …………………………………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Samastipur. 2. Munna Rajak, son of Late Ramavtar Rajak, resident of Village-Varunarsalpur, P.S. Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. J. Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------------------------------- 3. 9.9.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners have filed this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, in SC/ST P.S. Case No.7 of 2008, G.R. No.116 of 2008, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against 2 the accused-petitioners. 3. In brief, the case is that on the basis of the fardbeyan dated 21.1.2008 of the informant- opposite party no.2, Munna Rajak, SC/ST P.S. Case No.7 of 2008 was instituted against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3(i) (x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A) Act. In the fardbeyna, the informant- opposite party no.2 has alleged that on 20.1.2008 at about 9.00 A.M., his villagers, the accused-petitioners, Parmeshwar Rai and Arun Rai, were cutting the mango tree and when his cousin, Keshwar Rajak, objected the same, the accused-petitioner no.1, Parmeshwar Rai, told that he has got executed the sale deed of the land on which the mango tree is standing from Ragini Devi, the daughter of Late Nagendra Rai Prasad. On which his cousin, Keshwar Rajak, told that the land has not been partitioned and without partition, why the mango tree is being cut. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner no.1, Parmeshwar Rai, started assaulting Keshwar Rajak through fists and slaps. The informant-opposite party no.2 received information about the occurrence from his nephew Rajesh Rajak and moved to the orchard and when he reached near the orchard saw that the accused-petitioners were cutting 3 the mango tree and on protest by him, the accused-petitioner no.1, Parmeshwar Rai, caught hold of him and started assaulting him by fists and slaps by using abusive language and accused-petitioner no.2 assaulted him with Hasua causing injury on his left heel. On investigation, police submitted the chargesheet against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, on perusal of the case diary took the cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioners under the aforesaid Sections. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the informant-opposite party no.2, Munna Rajak, has filed this false case in counter blast of Sarairanjan P.S. Case No.11 of 2008 registered under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the written report of accused-petitioner no.1, Parmeshwar Rai, in which he had received serious injury. It has also been submitted that from bare perusal of the fardbeyan of the informant-opposite party no.2, Munna Rajak, which is the 4 basis of the SC/ST P.S. Case No.7 of 2008, it is clear that no offence under Sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act is made out against the accused-petitioners and that has been inserted by the police with oblique motive in collusion with the informant-opposite party no.2 and cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid section has also been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the accused-petitioners, which amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court. 5. The provisions of Sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act reveals that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. As such, for an offence under Sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act, it is necessary that the offensive words must be used by the accused persons not only in public view but in the presence of some members of the public. 6. At a glance, the fardbeyan of the informant- opposite party no.2 for the alleged occurrence appears to be for simple assault using abusive language to the informant- 5 opposite party no.2 and his cousin in respect of cutting of mango tree by the accused-petitioners claiming their land on which mango tree was standing. The fardbeyan does not disclose about using of the offensive words by the accused- petitioners with an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled. As such, it is apparent from the allegations of the informant-opposite party no.2 that no offence under Sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act is made out against the accused-petitioners. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners under Sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act is hereby quashed and the application is allowed only to that extent. However, the cognizance in respect of other offences under the Penal Code appears to have been made out and the trial will continue to that regard. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)