IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46750 of 2007 KAILASH DAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3/ 27.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party no.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 25.08.2007 in Complaint Case no. 1762/2007 under Sections 385, 406, 504 of I.P.C. and ¾ of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner made an illegal demand of Rs. 15,000/- for release of the salary of Opposite Party no.2, who is a teacher, abused her, also by her caste name. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the witnesses during enquiry in the Complaint Case were interested witnesses and earlier the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. against husband of the complainant and other witnesses to the complaint case on 7.7.2007 registered as Barari Rail P.S. Case no. 92/2007 under Sections 320, 341, 379, 427/34 of I.P.C. and that the present allegations were in retaliation thereto. That the petitioner was not competent to alone release the salary of Opposite Party 2 no.2. That in her statement on S.A., the Opposite Party no.2 had stated that she was called by her caste name inside her house by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2 and the State opposed the application. It was submitted that it is not very clear from the S.A. whether the allegations were made inside the house or in front of the house. The petitioner in his own pleadings has admitted that there were salaries dues of O.P. no.2. The allegation is of his having demanded illegal gratification for release of the same and abuse for the purpose. Whatever the petitioner may urge in that regard at this stage is his defence to be seen in the trial. The issue of the location where the person was called by the caste name is an aspect which can appropriately be considered during the trial itself. This Court merely for reasons of an earlier F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner against the husband of Opposite Party no.2 which also relates to the issue of salaries and taking away of the Cheque with regard to release of salary finds it difficult to entertain the application merely on the reasoning that the present allegations were only a retaliation. These are matters to be more appropriately considered in the trial itself. 3 There is no merit in this application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)