IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3175 of 2009 JYOT SINGH @ JYOT PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE RAM ANUJ SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MASAURAH TELPA, P.S. BIKRAM, DISTRIAT PATNA .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM LAGAN MANJHI, S/O LATE SAHTU MANJHI, R/O VILLAGE GANGA CHAK, P.S. BIKRAM, DISTRICT PATNA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /4/ 07.12.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This is an application for quashing the order, dated 29.02.2008, of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna, whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Bikram P.S. Case No. 2 of 2008 (G.R. No. 68 of 2008). 3. The prosecution case, as allege in the written report of the informant, that the petitioner was in service of the informant since fifteen years and used to work and plough the field and for the said work the petitioner has got fifteen katha of land. It is alleged that the petitioner fell in need of rupees two thousand and took rupees two 2 thousand from the wife of the petitioner and though he returned the money, but, even after returning the money it is alleged that a demand of rupees six thousand, as interest, has been made and it is further alleged that it was threatened that if he will not pay the interest he will not be allowed to live in the village. It has further been alleged that the petitioner was abused by calling ‘musarh’ and used to assault. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever the allegation made is that rupees two thousand was paid and it is alleged that rupees six thousand was demanded as interest. However, the allegation that he used to be abused by calling ‘musarh’, but, there is no mention of the place and time of the alleged occurrence of abusing by calling ‘musarh’ and there is further allegation of assault and threat, but, neither any place nor time has been mentioned and the allegation itself is quite vague and omni bus. It has, further, been submitted that the case has been filed just for the reason for the amount he has taken and returned back. 5. However, having regard to the fact that the allegation itself there is no mention of time and place of 3 abuse of calling he caste name of the informant was made in full public view or not to attract Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 6. Hence, having regard to the fact that the allegation is omni bus and general in nature it would not be proper to allow the proceeding to continue and it will be abuse of the process of the Court. The order, dated 29.02.2008, taking proceedings and the proceedings of Bikram P.S. Case No. 2 of 2008 is hereby quashed. 7. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)