IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.347 of 2007 VED PRAKASH @ VED PRAKASH SINHA, aged about 53 years Son of Late Harihar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Mohanpur, P.S. Jamalpur, Distt.- Munger. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Home Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Police, Head Quarter, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur. 6. The Dy. General of Police, Munger Range/ Circle Munger. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Fort Area, Munger. 8. The Inspector of Police-cum-Fact Finding Enquiry Officer, Jamalpur, P.S. Jamalpur, Distt. Munger. 9. Navin Kumar Paswan, the then of Officer-in-Charge, Jamalpur, P.S. Jamalpur, Distt.- Munger at Present posted under the control of Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. 10. Sanjay Kumar Paswan, s/o Rajendra Paswan, R/o Moha.Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamalpur, District- Munger. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 7/ 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of criminal prosecution of Jamalpur P.S. case no. 93 of 2006 under Sections 448, 323, 324, 307, 504, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel has prayed for quashing the First Information Report on the following grounds: He submits that no case under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would be made out against the petitioner, as the occurrence did not take place in public view. He further submits that as per the F.I.R. admittedly the occurrence took place inside the house. He next submits that the case was supervised by 2 an officer below the rank of Dy.S.P., for which he does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 9 of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 read with Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 the Act. He further submits that the various annexures brought by the State itself would show that in fact the investigating officer was present at the place of occurrence. He submits that there is discrepancies regarding the date and time of occurrence. He further submits that the F.I.R. is anti dated. Counsel for the State submits that charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. He further submits that a Bench of this Court in the case of Sant Bilash Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ano., reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 464, in paragraph 16 has held that it is not mandatory that the investigation would be made only by an officer of rank of Dy.S.P. Subsequent to notification dated 02.06.2002 of the Government, an officer below the rank of Dy.S.P. can also investigate. Heard learned counsel for the parties. So far as prayer for quashing of prosecution is concerned, the same has become infructuous, as in the instant case charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. It would be open to the petitioner to challenge both charge-sheet as well as order taking cognizance. It will also be open for the petitioner to submit that the occurrence took place inside the room and no offence under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled 3 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would be made out. So far as reliance of Rule 7 is concerned, this Court has already held in case of Sant Bilash Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ano (Supra) that the SC/S.T. Act does not prevent the investigation by an officer below the rank of the Dy.S.P. in view of the notification dated 02.06.2002 issued by State Government under Section 9 of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)