IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7451 of 2008 1. MAHENDRA PRASAD SINHA, 2. Ravindra Prasad, Both sons of late Ramnandan Prasad. 3. Umesh Prasad, son of Mahendra Prasad Sinha, All residents of Madhuban Bara, Par Nawada, P.S. Town Nawada (Bundelkhand), District – Nawada. ------------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Karu Rajak, son of Late Kishun Rajak, Resident of Mohalla – Madhuban Bara, Par Nawada, P.S. Town Nawada (Bundelkhand), District – Nawada ------------------------- Opposite parties. ------- 3 23.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as opposite party and State. This is an application seeking quashing of the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada cum Special Judge, Nawada in Special (H) Case No. 22 of 2007 under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, rejecting the prayer of the applicant seeking their discharge. On the basis of the fardbeyan of opposite party no. 2 this case bearing Nawada P.S. Case No. 126/2003 was instituted for the offences under Section 323, 337, 504, 341 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation charge sheet was submitted, cognizance has been taken and case was committed to the Special Court. My attention was drawn towards the contents of the - 2 - complaint petition which is Annexure – 1, wherein in no way it is mentioned that applicants i.e. accused persons are not members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, which is required to be specifically mentioned in the fardbeyan of complaint petition as held by the Apex Court in Case of Gorige Pentaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531. Form the impugned order it appears that this aspect was neither placed nor considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that taking into consideration nature of the allegation and injury offences under Section 307 is also not made out. Under the facts and circumstance as stated above, it seems desirable that the matter be heard afresh by the court below in the light of the decision of Apex Court aforementioned and on such consideration fresh order be passed. The court below is directed to re-hear the parties on the point of charge in the light of observation and decision stated above. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)