IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57242 of 2007 Ram Ekbal Singh, son of Late Paspat Singh, village Daudpur Kothi, PS MIT Brahampura, Muzaffarpur – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Lagan Paswan, son of Late Bhikhari Paswan, village Khabra, PS Sadar, Dist. Muzaffarpur – Opp. Parties. 8 30.11.2010 The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1280/2004 / Trial No. 40/2006. The prosecution case is that the District Rural Development Department floated a scheme to develop Bakhari Palan in village Khabra. The complainant is the treasurer and Secretary of a self supporting society, whereas the petitioner is Assistant Manager of the bank where the money was to be deposited. It is said that the petitioner got the signature of the Secretary and the treasurer and withdrew the said amount. The further case is that the complainant went to the house of the petitioner to obtain some documents where he was assaulted by the Bank Manager and was called Chamar. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a complaint case against the present complainant in which cognizance has been taken. The allegations made out in the complaint are denied by the petitioner and it is said that in fact the complainant wanted to take advantage of the schemes in question. 2 It is further submitted that merely calling the complainant as Chamar would not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, specially in view of the fact that the entire allegations become unbelievable as it is hardly possible that the complainant would go to the house of the petitioner for the purpose as alleged in the F.I.R. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the occurrence has taken place within the fore-corner of the house of the petitioner and as such no offence under the aforesaid Act is made out. This Court accepts the submissions aforesaid, as merely calling a person by the caste name does not in itself constitute an offence, unless it is said in manner which is accompanied with implication that it is meant to lower the persons dignity in the eyes of the public at large and is said in the presence of several persons. In this case, the facts do not disclose any offence. It has been pointed out that there is also a counter case filed by the Assistant Manager of the Bank, in which cognizance has been taken. I, thus, quash the order, dated 28.11.2007 as far as it relates to the offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act passed in the aforesaid. This application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)