IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.26631 OF 2008 RINKU YADAV, SON OF BRIJNANDAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIRNAMA, POLICE STATION CHANDI (VENA), DISTRICT NALANDA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. HARE RAM RAVIDAS, SON OF LATE SUKHLAL RAVIDAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIRNAMA, POLICE STATION CHANDI (VENA), DISTRICT NALANDA …………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. ALOK SINHA, ADVOCATE MR. MANOJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHAYAY, A.P.P. ************** 3 11/11/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 25.01.2007 passed in chandi (Vena) Police Station Case No. 70 of 2006 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda has taken cognizance against the petitioner under sections 147, 149, 323, 436, 452, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Initially, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Police Officer concerned had no right to investigate this case. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has produced a notification issued by the Government of Bihar, Home (Police) Department under - 2 - memo no. 6104 dated 3rd June, 2002. According to this notification, the Police Inspector, the Sub-Inspector of Police or the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police may investigate the case concerning offences under the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In view of the aforesaid notification, this point is no longer available to the petitioner. The second point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 3(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not apply in the facts of this case. Referring to the allegations made in the First Information Report, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the statements made in the First Information Report. “ykBh baVk ls yS’k gksdj ,dk,d gekjs ?kj vkaxu esa /kql x;k vkSj gesa rFkk gekjk yM+dk iIiq jfonkl ,oa yM+dh vatuh dqekjh] iqrksgq lquhrk nsoh] ifr iIiq jfonkl rFkk gekjh ifRu ykyrh nsoh dks xkyh xykSt djrs gq, ekjihV djus yxk ge lHkkh ds }kjk fojks/k fd;s tkus ij mijksDr lHkh yksx xkyh nsrs gq, cksys dh lkys pekj gfjtu vkx yxkdj jk[k dj nsaxs vkSj ;g dgrs gq, jfo ;kno] ’kSys’k ;kno] fjadq ;kno gekjs fuokl ?kj esa vkx yxk fn;k rFkk pqgh ;kno] fjadq ;kno] VaMu ;kno] xqysVu ;kno lHkh dk lHkh cksyrs jgs dh lkys - 3 - gfjtu dks ekjdj mlh vkx esa >qyl nsaxsA “ It is apparent from the allegations made in the First Information Report that the abuses if at all were hurled within the four corners of the house particularly within the AANGAN of the house of the informant and as such it does not come within the purview of Section 3(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which reads as follows:- 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” Considering that the First Information Report itself states that the occurrence took place within the house and not in public view, it cannot be said that the allegations made out cannot come within the purview of Section 3 (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the result, the order taking cognizance so far as it relates to Section 3(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is quashed. The Court below shall proceed with respect to - 4 - the other offences in which cognizane have been taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)