IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.70 of 2008 1. JOT NARAYAN, SON OF LATE JUGUL THAKUR. 2. LAKSHMAN THAKUR, SON OF LATE JUGUL THAKUR. 3. BAIDNATH THAKUR, SON OF LATE JUGUL THAKUR. 4. SRI NARAYAN THAKUR, SON OF LAKSHMAN THAKUR. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-BISHUNPURA, P.S. PIPRA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. ………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ------------- The four F.I.R. named accused of Pipra P.S. Case No.133 of 2004 have filed this application for quashing of order dated 24.5.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 448 and 427/34 I.P.C. as also Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”). One Most. Surjo filed Complaint Case No.1427 of 2004 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari which was transmitted to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the instant Pipra P.S. Case has been registered. According to the informant at about 8 A.M. in the morning of 28.7.2004, the accused persons came to the door of the informant and abused her in choicest terms like “Sali”, “Haramzadi”, “Bhosari”, “Dushadhin” and castigated her for trying to - 2 - compare herself with them and thereafter assaulted her with kicks, shoes, fists and lathi and also dragged her around as a result whereof her wearing apparel got torn. It is said that with the intervention of the witnesses she managed to save herself and fled into her house whereupon all the accused persons closed the door and locked her inside and again hurled abuses at her and also threatened to kill her. It is also alleged that one Kaushalya Devi who had sought to intervene in the assault of the informant was also assaulted and abused and insulted using the words “Dushadhin” and she too was locked inside. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to bonafide land dispute and dirty village politics. It is also submitted that the entire prosecution story was false, concocted and unreliable. It was further submitted that Most. Surjo Devi and Late Sona Devi are sisters by relationship and have their “Madai” in the village Bishunpur and as they had no brother, on the death of their parents they came in possession of the entire paternal property. It is submitted that the petitioners had purchased the land from Lakhindra Paswan, the son of the deceased sister of the informant who had received it by virtue of a deed of gift executed in his favour by the original landlord whereas the informant had sold her share of lands to other persons and even as the petitioners wanted possession of their part of the purchased land the informant was not ready to let them take possession. The learned counsel for the petitioners further sought to submit that the independent witnesses examined by the police have - 3 - not supported the case of the prosecution which the informant had filed on the instigation of a pattidar of her father and even as the police submitted final form, the learned Magistrate had differed with the final form and had taken cognizance. Finally, It has been submitted that the present case is civil in nature and no offence can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is of their having come to the house of the informant and of having abused and assaulted her and of having dragged her in such a manner that her wearing apparel got torn and the learned Magistrate taking cognizance on perusal of the relevant paragraphs of the case diary has differed from the final form submitted by the police. From the allegations a criminal case does appear to have been made out against the petitioners. Criminal Cases have to be proceeded in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and merely saying that the case is of civil nature and calling for civil action in a different court cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings. That apart the claims of the petitioners that they had purchased land from the son of the deceased sister of the informant are matters of facts which can be proved or disproved in course of a full fledged trial. Even the submissions that the witnesses examined in course of investigation have not supported the case of the prosecution amounts to inquiring into disputed and controversial facts and the same cannot be made a basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - 4 - There is another aspect of the matter. As held in the case of Swaran Singh Vs. State, reported in 2008(4) PLJR 178 (SC) calling a member of the Scheduled Castes “Chamar” with intent to insult or humiliate him/her in a place within public view is certainly an offence under the Act. In the present case, the F.I.R. prima facie discloses that the intention of the accused persons was to insult or humiliate the informant by calling her “Sali”, “Haramzadi”, “Bhosari”, “Dushadhin” in public view which is an offence under the SC/ST Act. At this stage, the correctness of the allegation in the F.I.R. cannot be taken into consideration to quash the same. For the reasons, stated above, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 20th of February, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.