IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38218 of 2007 HARENDRA RAJAK SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR RAJAK, RESIDENT OF BHERIA RAHIKA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT- KATHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. MEERA DEVI WIFE OF SRI SHANKAR PRASAD BHAGAT 3. SRI SHANKAR PRASAD BHAGAT SON OF CHATARI BHAGAT NO. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF MIRCHAIBARI, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT- KATIHAR. ----------- 3 12.08.2010 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the O.Ps. is present. Complainant is before this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 30.4.2007 passed on the criminal revision application preferred by him being Cr. Rev. no. 157 of 2002 (Harendra Razak versus The State of Bihar). The complaint of the petitioner lodged under diverse sections of SC/ST Act was dismissed by the Learned Magistrate in terms of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge which was considered and dismissed. Learned revisional court in paragraph 6 of the order found and held as under:- “6. Perused the case record and materials available on the record. From perusal of the case record, it transpires that the revisionist/complainant has filed a complaint petition bearing no. 755/01 (Harendra Rajak versus Mira Devi and Shankar Pd. Bhagat) u/s 3(2)(II) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 on 8.6.2001 in the Court of learned C.J.M., Katihar. The learned C.J.M., Katihar recorded S.A. of the revisionist/complainant and also examined three witnesses namely Kanti Pd. Mandal, Ram Rajak and Dip Narain Mandal during enquiry. The learned C.J.M., Katihar after considering all the materials facts available on the 2 record, dismissed the aforesaid complaint case of the revisionist/complainant on 5.10.2002. It is relevant to mentioned here that the purpose of enquiry is only to see whether there is prima facie materials against the O.P./accused person for summoning them or not. From mere perusal of the materials available on the record and also materials available during enquiry, it is crystal clear that there is no prima-facie materials against the O.Ps no. 2 and 3 to proceed further. The examined witnesses during enquiry have said noting legal facts showing prima-facie materials for summoning the O.P. no. 2 and 3/accused persons u/s 3(2)(II) S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The nature and circumstances of the referred case law on behalf of the revisionist is different from the nature and circumstances of the present case.” This Court does not find any merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )