IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19840 of 2007 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD @ RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA , S/o Late Banke Prasad Srivastav, R/o Mohalla West of Tirhuat Academy, P.S. Town, District Samastipur 2. Sweta Prasad , wife of Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Prasad Srivastava , S/o Late Banke Prasad Srivastav, R/o Mohalla West of Tirhuat Academy, P.S. Town, District Samastipur ……. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Srimati Kalawati Devi, W/o Sri Baldev Paswan, R/o Dharampur Mistama, P.S. Muffasil, District Samastipur ….. Opp. Parties ----------- For the petitioners : M/s Kanak Verma & Prabhat Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. O R D E R The two petitioners who along with 3 – 4 unknown others figured as FIR named accused in Samastipur P.S. Case No. 7 of 2003 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, (S.C / S.T. Act), Samastipur, whereby he has dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners herein under section 228 Cr.P.C. One Kalawati Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 65 of 2003 against the two petitioners and 3 – 4 unknown others alleging commission of offences under sections 323, 354 and 504 IPC as also section 3(1)(i), 3(1) (ii), 3(1) (iii), 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as „the SC & ST Act‟) at the hands of the accused at about 5 P.M. on 20.1.2003. The said case on being transmitted to the concerned P.S. the instant police case came to be registered against the two petitioners and 3 – 4 unknown others under the same Penal 2 provisions. According to the informant at the relevant time on the appointed day while she was returning home from Sonebarsa and reached in front of the house of the petitioners, accused no. 1 who was standing on the road from before stopped the informant and beckoned his students taking tuition and his family members and ordered them to drag her inside the house and allegedly addressing her as “haramjadi Dusadhin” castigated her for registering a case against him and ordered her to withdraw the same. It is alleged that when the informant retorted in the negative accused no. 1 is alleged to have caught hold her hair, pushed her face on to the road and spitting on the road she was ordered to lick the same failing which she would face dire consequences. It is further alleged that the informant due to fear licked the spit and notwithstanding the same the other accused assaulting her with slaps and fists called her “bhosari Dusadhin” and rebuked her for litigating with them. It is further alleged that in the meantime accused no. 2 rendered her naked by divesting her of her sari and catching hold of her legs dragged her towards the house. The alarm raised by her, attracted the people of the neighbourhood and their arrival saved her from further humiliation and the accused fled away. It was alleged that the accused had intentionally rendered her naked so as to intimidate / insult her with the intent to humiliate her, a member of the scheduled caste. It was also alleged that on 2.10.2002 accused no. 1 in collusion with his 3 brother had driven his car over the body of the informant in an effort to kill her but she had managed to save herself. Assailing the impugned order the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to submit that they had been falsely implicated since the brother of the petitioner no. 1, Bipin Prasad, had taken a shop on rent from one Ganesh Babu to carry on his furniture business and they had accommodated her to vend vegetables from in front of the shop and on 2.10.2002 when the petitioners had gone to supervise the shop and had parked the car in front of the shop, the accused persons started abusing him for which a petition was filed before the District Magistrate, Samastipur on 6.10.2002 and with the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur with a request to remove the encroachment from Tajpur road and a direction was issued by the Superintendent of Police to the Officer Incharge to look into the matter. It is further submitted that when O.P. No. 2 and the other vegetable sellers came to know about the fact of the petitioners and the others having given a petition to remove the encroachment, they became furious and to prevent their eviction, they assembled and damaged the car of the petitioners and petitioner as also his brother attempted to entered in their car, O.P. No. 2 along with others allegedly dragged him out of the car and removed Rs. 80/- from his pocket and also assaulted petitioner no. 1 and his brother. The matter was reported to the police by the elder brother who apprehended danger to his life and his family members and informatory petition was 4 filed. Other cases filed inter se and attempts by the informant and her associates to assault the petitioners and others and also having snatched cash, watch and valuable documents have been raised apart from a claim of Rs. 25,000/- as rangdari from his brother. The brother of the petitioner no. 1 is also said to have filed a Complaint Petition No. 1227 of 2002 , wherein cognizance has been taken against the present complainant. On this premise it was submitted that the petitioners had not committed any wrong and had been falsely implicated in this case due to the long standing enmity only to put pressure on them. It is further submitted that notwithstanding several witnesses having not supported the prosecution case and having stated about the pendency of the several rounds of litigations and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur having approved the conclusion arrived at by Dy. S.P., Sadar, directed a final form to be submitted and in accordance therewith the same was filed on 30.6.2006. However, with the advent of a new Superintendent of Police and political pressure the new incumbent directed for reinvestigation of the case. Eventually a charge sheet was submitted. Sub - section (8) of section 173 Cr.P.C. has made it possible for the police to send in a further report. Gainful reference may be made to the decisions of State Vs. Aruna, reported in (1995)1 SCC 1 and State of Bihar Vs. J.A.C. Saldanna (AIR 1980 S.C. 326). In the earlier case after a final for had been submitted by 5 the police stating that the complaint sent by the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was false and the Magistrate accepted the same, it so happened that the Superintendent of Police independently ordered further investigation and this time the police on the basis of fresh materials, which came to light, filed a charge sheet and the Magistrate took cognizance thereupon. The Apex Court observed that this was visualized under sub-section (8) of section 173 Cr.P.C. and it could not be said that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. Then again two types of report, namely, a final form and a charge sheet had been submitted by the police at two different points of time in respect of the same occurrence on the basis of investigation. He also appeared to be aware of the fact that at the stage of sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. which are to be read in juxtaposition with each other the court was required to meticulously judge the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution. The Court was also not required to see whether there was sufficient ground for conviction nor was any weight to be attached to the probable defence. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be finally applied before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. Gainful reference in this connection may be placed on the decision of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (AIR 1977 SC 2018). Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of 6 the case it could only be decided at a full dressed trial as to whether the petitioners were guilty of the offences they have been charged with or not. The filing of the two different kinds of reports at two different points of time was the subject matter of the trial and it would have to be decided therein. In the facts and circumstances of the case I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 17th of July, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)