IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38816 of 2008 1. KAILASH PRASAD MAHTO SON OF LATE DAHU MAHTO 2. VIJAY KUMAR MAHTO SON OF KAILASH PRASAD MAHTO 3. AJAY KUMAR MAHTO SON OF KAILASH PRASAD MAHTO, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHEPURA, P.S. BISFI(O.P. AUNSI) DISTRICT MADHUBANI. …PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. JITENDRA KUMAR RAM, SON OF SRI JIBACH RAM …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners : Mr. Kumar Kaushik For O.P.No.2 :Mr. Ratnakar Jha For State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 28.07.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2008, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in C.R. No. 434/08, whereby on a consideration of materials brought on record in course of enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C. it has been found that a prima facie case under diverse sections of the Penal Code as also under section 3(i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been made out justifying orders taking cognizance. O.P. No.2 lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that on the morning of 14.04.2008 his daughter, aged about eight years, had gone to the orchard of the accused persons for picking mangoes(Tikola). She was caught by accused persons and tied with a tree. On hearing cries of his daughter, the complainant rushed to the place of occurrence and cajoled them to untie her. Upon which - 2 - accused no.1 got angry, called his other henchmen and abused the complainant naming his caste. It was further alleged that his daughter would not be released until and unless Jurmana (penalty) is paid. It is further the case of complainant that on hearing cries of his daughter, passers-by assembled there and she was anyhow rescued. It is further the prosecution case that thereafter accused persons forcibly entered into the house of the complainant, assaulted him and committed theft in his house. On a consideration of aforesaid allegations appearing from the records, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. While assailing the sustainability of the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the averments made in the complaint as would appear from records, it cannot be inferred that complainant was abused in the name of his caste in order to humiliate him in full public view. It is next contended that there is no assertion in the complaint that accused persons belong to non-SC/ST class/category. Learned counsel further tried to assail the applicability of section 452 IPC on the ground that there is no allegation that accused persons had entered into the house of the complainant after making preparation therefor. This Court finds that all the foundational facts have been alleged in the complaint which found support in course of enquiry. At the state of taking cognizance the court has only to confine itself to find whether there is a prima facie case or not justifying the order. The court below has found that there is prima - 3 - facie material on record to proceed with the case. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )