IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5199 of 2009 1. RAM AUTAR SINGH Son of Late Nunu Singh 2. Umesh Kumar Singh Son of Basudeo Singh 3. Brahmdeo Singh Son of Laldeo Mahto 4. Baldeo Mahto Son of Late Sahdeo Mahto 5. Laldeo Mahto Son of Late Sahab Mahto 6. Veena Devi Wife of Brahmdeo Singh, All are resident of village- Pathrahi Mokari Tola, P.S. Ladaniya, District- Madhubani. ----------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Laldeo Paswan Son of Late Gulten Paswan, resident of Village- Pathrahi Mokari Tola, P.S. Ladaniya, Distt- Madhubani ------------Opposite parties. For the petitioner:- Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Informant:- Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate, For the State- Mr. Amarendra Prasad, A.P.P. --------------------- 3. 06.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This application is directed against the order dated 29.11.2008 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in G. R. No. 818/07 arising out of Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 37 of 2007 by which the discharge petition of the petitioners have been rejected holding that there are sufficient material in the case diary against accused persons including this petitioner. The grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are that even taking into consideration the allegation in the complaint and 2 case diary no offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of S.C. and S.T. Act is made out against these petitioners and hence contended that the order rejecting the petition is not sustainable and raised specific assertion at least the offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act is not made out. However, the allegation in the complaint petition itself that one Veena Devi and Usha Kumari were washing the utensils and then the informant Laldeo Paswan came to take bath in the pond. The two lady Veena Devi and Usha Devi objected to take bath then both the accused alleged to have stated their utensil will be touched by them that untouchability persists by this Act and even objected to taking bath inside the pond till they wash away their utensil and asked to take bath after they wash away their utensil but the informant was in hurry he started taking bath and then both of them abused called other accused persons including these petitioners came and chided the informant and when informant went, the accused persons ran to his house and assaulted the informant and take Rs. 500 from his pocket. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that even assuming that the 3 allegation of untouchability is of the two lady namely, Veena Devi and Usha Devi. It is alleged that at the instance of Usha Devi and Veena Devi the other accused persons came and the only allegation is that they abused and assaulted the informant in his house. Hence the entire allegation is against the petitioners merely makes out a case of assault but does not make out an offence under Section 3 (i) (x) on allegation taken on the face value of the allegation. Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that in the case diary their may have some material, however, there is nothing in complaint about any allegation whatsoever against the petitioner for offence under Section 3(i) (x) SC/ST Act further the impugned order suggests that learned Magistrate found that the offence under Section 3 (i) (x) is made out against these petitioners. However the allegation of untouchability observed is only against the Veena Devi, Usha Devi and not against the petitioner as apparent in the F.I.R or Fard beyan. Hence taking the allegation in Fard beyan true on its face value does not make out an offence under Section 3(i)x SC/ST Act against the petitioners. 4 Having regard to submission and from the impugned order it is apparent that learned Magistrate did not apply its mind to point raise considering the petitioners prayer for his discharge for offence under Section 3 (i) x of S.C./S.T. Act. Hence to that extent the impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to reconsider the case of the grievance of the petitioners and to give a reasoned order whether the charge under Section 3 (i) (x) is made out against the petitioners. This application is disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)