IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12716 of 2008 1. RAM BILASH SAHNI , SON OF SRI DHANIK SAHNI 2. JAGDEO RAI, SON OF SRI DUKHAN RAI,BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIKRAMPATTI, P.S. KHANPUR, SAMASTIPUR .PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. JALO RAM SON OF SUNDAR RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HASANPUR P.S. KHANPUR, SAMASTIPUR. OPP.PARIES For the Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kumar For O.P.No.2 :Mr.Amitabh Bhardawaj For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 26.07.2010 Petitioners assail the order dated 10.03.2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in C.R.No.846/05/T.R.No.1606/06/T.R.No.1410/07 (Jalo Ram vs. Ram Bilash Sahni & Anr.), whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under section 3 (i) (X) of the SC & ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code. Background facts giving rise to the present application may be recapitulated. O.P.No.2 filed a complaint in the court of CJM, Samastipur alleging therein that he was Harijan by caste. A sum of Rs.10, 000/- was allotted to him under the Indira Awas Yojna (IAY) by way of first instalment. Petitioner no.1 demanded a sum of Rs. 4000/- out of the said amount and threatened him of not providing the second instalment, if the said amount is not paid. The complainant paid the said amount to petitioner no.1, who was Mukhiya of the Gram - 2 - Panchayat. It is further the prosecution case that one Jiwach Ram filed a case against Mukhiya (petitioner no.1) in which he deposed as a witness. Infuriated by this action, the accused persons came at the house of the complainant and threatened him not to depose against them in the said case. When the complainant failed to oblige petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2 at the instigation of petitioner no.1, captivated and assaulted the complainant by calling him as Chamar. Both of them dragged the complainant out and tried to take him away on a motor cycle. On Hulla, people gathered there whereafter they escaped from the place of occurrence. The complainant was examined on S.A. and four enquiry witnesses were produced. On a consideration of materials brought on record in course of enquiry, learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case under section 3 (i) (X) of the Act has been made out besides penal provisions contained in I.P.C. While assailing the legality of the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant in course of enquiry was examined on S.A. He produced four witnesses who were examined as enquiry witnesses. It is the contention of the petitioners that neither the complainant nor the witnesses in course of their respective statements made in enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C, have uttered that complainant was humiliated and/or abused by taking the name of his caste. In support of his submission, he refers to Annexure-2 (S.A. of the complainant) and statements of these witnesses, namely, Ram Kumar Chaudhary, Ram Sewak Chaudhary, Jagdish Ram and Ram Sahni. P.W.4 (Ram Sahni) has stated nothing - 3 - in his statement before the court. The complainant and the rest of the witnesses did state before the court that when the complainant asked for his release the accuseds abused him by using filthy language. Caste name was not used. On these facts, it is contended that order taking cognizance under section 3 (i) (X) of Act is bad in law. He relies on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hari Shankar Sah vs. State of Bihar (2005(1) PLJR 579). Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that true it is that in course of enquiry complainant and witnesses have not used the word relating to the caste of the complainant, but they have definitely stated that complainant was abused by using filthy language. He refers to the complaint and submits that there is specific allegation in the complaint that he was abused in the name of his caste. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. There is no dispute between the parties that witnesses, including complainant in course of enquiry, has not alleged that the complainant was abused by the accuseds in the name of his caste. A bench of this Court in the case of Hari Shankar Sah (Supra), while considering the identical aspect of the matter, has taken a view that for making out a prima facie case under section ¾ of the Act the complainant must allege those words which are sufficient for making out a prima facie case under those sections of the Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 6 has accepted the submission - 4 - of the petitioner that complainant in his S.A. has not uttered any such words which will make out a prima facie case. In that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance under section 3 (i) (X) of the Act was interfered with and quashed. This Court finds that neither the complainant nor the witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant have alleged that complainant was humiliated by using filthy language including the caste name. If the case of the complainant is not substantiated from his statement on S.A. and the statements of witnesses examined in course of enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C., in my view, a prima facie case under section 3 (i) (X) of the Act cannot be said to have been made out justifying the order taking cognizance under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly the impugned order in so far as the same relates to section 3(i) (X) is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that so far as the cognizance under diverse sections of IPC is concerned, the same has not been quashed and the proceeding shall continue. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )