IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42878 of 2007 1. SHEO SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE CHUNNA SINGH 2. KESHRI SINGH, SON OF SHEO SHANKAR SINGH 3. KALTU SINGH, SON OF RAMESHWAR SINGH 4. RABINDRA SINGH, SON OF SEWAK SINGH @ BAS RAJ SINGH 5. SURESH SINGH, SON OF RABINDRA SINGH @ DEVENDRA SINGH 6. PRABHU SINGH, SON OF LATE MUNESHWAR SINGH 7. SAGAR SINGH, SON OF DUKHIT SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FAREEDPUR, P.S. RAJAPAKAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAM RUP MANJHI, SON OF LATE JHAGRU MANJHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHOKRAI, P.S. RAJAPAKAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS ********** 6 29.11.2010 Petitioner challenges the order taking cognizance dated 22.8.2006 in a case under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 435 and 504 of the Indian Penal Cod and Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. The main submission of the petitioner is that no offence is made out under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. & S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Counsel for the petitioner draws this Court’s attention Annexure-1 the First Information Report in which it is said that 9 accused persons came to the house of the informant and said that they would remove the colony of ‘Mushars’ from the locality and thereafter assaulted the complainant and it is alleged that Kaltu Singh set fire to the hut of the complainant. Reason for the occurrence is said to be that there was 2 a dispute between Upendra Manjhi and Kaltu Singh in which there was hot exchange of words. Counsel for the petitioner submits that final form was submitted in this case but the Court taking cognizance has differed from the final form and finally taken cognizance without examining whether any offence is made out in this case. It would appear on the perusal of the First Information Report that in fact the occurrence, if at all, took place in the ‘Aangan’ of the complainant. It is not alleged that any of the accused persons abused the complainant in such a way that would hurt the dignity of the complaint and humiliate the complainant in full public view. In fact apart from the general term used above, there is no specific abuse against the complainant or his family members. This Court, therefore, finds on perusal of the records, no offence is made out under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. & S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the result, the order impugned dated 22.8.2006 is quashed to the extent that this Court finds that cognizance is bad under the S.C. & S.T. Act. This quashing application is allowed in part. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)