IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.323 of 2008 DR.SHIV KUMAR SINGH MOHALLA SHIVPURI, EKMA, SARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN 3. SAFARU RAM, MORHOPUR, EKMA, SARAN ----------- 10. 23.07.2010. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing F.I.R. of Vaishali Sadar Police Station case no. 53/2008 dated 5.3.2008 lodged under sections 341,323,504 I.P.C. and 3(i)(X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the SC/ST Act). It is alleged by the informant that when he went to the clinic of the petitioner for treatment of his abdominal pain along with his two accomplices, the compounder took him to the private room/chambers of the petitioner where it is alleged that he abused the informant calling him names and drove him out of the clinic. The petitioner submits that institution of the F.I.R. Under the SC/ST Act is bad in law as the occurrence did not take place in public view. He submits that it is apparent from F.I.R. that occurrence took place inside a room of clinic of petitioner. The informant has subsequently tried to show that his two accomplices were also present inside the room. Learned counsel submits that presence of two accomplices of the informant would not bring the case within preview of section 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST Act as the occurrence did not take place in public view. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the decision rendered in 2 cases of Brahmdeo Jha & ors Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005(2)PLJR493 and Tunnu Singh and others Vs.State of Bihar and another, reported in PLJR 2008(1) 264. In case of Brahmdeo Jha (Supra), this Court quashed order taking cognizance under section 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST Act on the ground that court yard of accused would not come within the purview of public view. Similarly, this court in case of Tunnu Singh and others quashed order taking cognizance holding that the door of the informant would not come within the public view. Learned counsel also submitted that even ingredients of sections 341 & 504 I.P.C. are not made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The cases relied upon by the petitioner in which this Court quashed the criminal prosecution was post filing of charge sheet and taking of cognizance. The instant case is of year 2008 and the investigation is likely to be concluded shortly. This Court as such is not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage. So far as plea of petitioner that no offence under section 341 I.P.C. would be made out, I find substance in his submission. Perusal of F.I.R. does not disclose even the basic ingredient of section 341 I.P.C. As such, I quash the prosecution instituted under section 341 I.P.C. The other plea of petitioner that no offence under section 504 I.P.C. is made out, as there was no intention on his part to cause breach of peace, would be well addressed in case charge sheet is submitted. However, if the petitioner makes representation to the Investigating officer that the allegations do not constitute a case 3 under the SC and ST Act or under section 504 I.P.C., he will look into the same. Till submission of police report, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner in the above mentioned case. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Shashi. ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)