IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.410 of 2009 1. BRIJ KISHORE THAKUR 2. LALLUN THAKUR @ LALLAN THAKUR 3. PRAMOD THAKUR 4. NARESH THAKUR 5. JATA SHANKAR THAKUR 6. CHANDRA MOHAN THAKUR 7. BHAGELU THAKUR 8. HARDEO THAKUR 9. ASHESHAR THAKUR 10. SATYENDRA THAKUR 11. NARESH THAKUR 12. JAMUNA THAKUR 13. SANJEET THAKUR @ SANJEET KUMAR THAKUR 14. HARI SHANKAR THAKUR 15. RAJU THAKUR 16. DUKHI THAKUR 17. JITENDRA THAKUR 18. HARENDRA THAKUR 19. CHANARWANSH THAKUR @ CHANDRAWANSH THAKUR 20. ARVIND THAKUR …PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSIE PARTY For the petitioners :Mr. Basishtha Nr. Mishra & :Mr.Brij Kishore Misra For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 2. 29.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 02.02.2009, passed by learned Special Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in S.T.No.403 of 2008, whereby their application preferred under sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C. for discharge under section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act has been considered and rejected on the ground that there is/are sufficient materials available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing 2 the order submits that going by the allegations contained in the FIR, the allegation of humiliating the informant in his caste name followed by assault is directed against only one accused person, namely, Brij Kishore Thakur. As per the FIR lodged on 10.04.2001 at 7.00 P.M. the informant was sitting at the canal when accused Brij Kishore Thakur came there and started calling his caste name which was protested whereafter other accused persons joined him and assault was inflicted upon the informant and other persons who had assembled at the said place on the alarm raised by the informant. Petitioners are facing prosecution under diverse sections of the Penal Code read with section 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST Act. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that due to previous animosity as reflected from different FIRs it would appear that there was hostility between the parties. It is also the contention that the police submitted charge-sheet under diverse sections of the Penal Code but not under sections 379 and 436 IPC and section 3(i)(X) SC/ST Act. It appears that against one of the accused persons, namely, Sujit Thakur charge sheet was submitted under diverse sections of IPC including section 3(i)(X) SC/St Act. Subsequently, another charge sheet was submitted against rest of the accused persons in which allegation constituting offence punishable under section 3(i)(X) SC/ST Act was not found to have been substantiated. It further appears from records that learned Magistrate differing with the said report had taken 3 cognizance under diverse sections of IPC as also section 3(i)(X) SC/ST Act. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to only consider as to whether there is/are sufficient evidence on records justifying proceeding further with the case/trial. The plea of the petitioner that the present allegation has been levelled due to animosity and that there is no allegation against the petitioners constituting offence under section 3(i)(X) SC/ST Act shall be appraised at the trial. Law is fairly settled that even on a grave suspicion based on materials on record, accused has to be put on trial. This Court does not find any patent illegality in the order meriting interference. In view of observations hereinabove, the petitioner shall have liberty to raise/agitate all these issues at the relevant stage of the proceeding. With the liberty aforesaid, the application is disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )