IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12782 of 2008 1. BIJOY KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI INDRADEO RAI R/O- VILLAGE- GOBARDHANPUR, P.S.- AKODHI GOLA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 2. MAHESH PRASAD, SON OF SRI RAM BOLA MAHTO, R/O- VILLAGE + P.O.- INARBA, P.S.- SONBARSA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ASHARFI MOCHI S/O- LATE FULCHAND MOCHI, R/O- VILLAGE- TAANRA, BARIYARPUR, P.S.- KHODAWANDPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Singh, APP ----------- 5 15.11.2010 Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Begusarai passed in cc, 1159C of 2002 whereby cognizance under Sections 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been taken and summons have been directed to be issued. Brief facts giving rise to the present application may be noticed. Complainant was serving as Assistant Manager, Begusarai Central Cooperative Bank Ltd(hereinafter to be referred as the Bank). Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are/were functioning as Managing Director as well as one of the Directors of the Bank respectively. On 31.8.2002, a complaint was lodged alleging therein that the complainant being an officer of the Bank, belongs to scheduled caste category whereas petitioners belong to upper castes. The complainant used to be teased and insulted on several occasions 2 by them calling him “Shala Chamarua”. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, he went to the Chambers of petitioner No. 1 where petitioner No. 2 was found sitting from before. He argued his case for promotion whereafter they demanded certain amount and on his inability to pay the same, he was again humiliated/abused in the name of caste and thereafter manhandled. The scene created there attracted several witnesses whereafter the complainant receded from the chambers and found himself gravely humiliated and insulted after the incident that occurred in the Chamber of the office occupied by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 leading to filing of complaint. Learned trial Court made inquiry in terms of Sections 200 and 202 of the Code wherein witnesses were examined. On a consideration of the materials brought on record in course of such inquiry, it was found that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners and accordingly, cognizance has been taken under the aforesaid sections. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that going by the allegations contained in the complaint, it is not evident that the complainant was abused/humiliated in the name of caste in public view. It is next contended that only uttering name of caste would not measure up to the requirements of law for taking cognizance under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. It is next contended that the present proceeding has been launched with mala fide intention as the complainant was not being considered for promotion to the next higher post of Development Officer. It is submitted with reference to 3 Annexure-2 that the complainant was suspended under the orders of petitioner No. 1 on 29.8.2002 whereafter the present complaint was lodged on 31.8.2002. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is submitted that admittedly the incidence/occurrence had taken place in the office which is a public place. It is alleged in the complaint itself that scene created by the accused attracted witnesses whereafter the complainant could leave the chambers of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It is next contended that the actual words used by the petitioners and the place where it was used would be sufficient to show that it was meant to humiliate him in the name of his caste and in public view. Particular emphasis has been led on the words “Shala Chamarua”. Referring to Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is contended that requirement of law is that any one who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within a public view then prima facie it can be said that the offence has been committed. With reference to Annexure-2, it has been contended that the same is a got up document created at the instance of petitioner No. 1, signatory of the order, in order to create defence which, at the stage of taking cognizance, is not required to be relied upon. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Requirement of Section 3(1)(x) is that any person who does not belong to SC/ST category, if intentionally, insults or 4 intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, then an offence is said to have been made out. The place where it has occurred assumes significance. From the complaint, it is very much evident that this all occurred in the office/chamber which is a public place. Complainant has further alleged in the complaint that his humiliation in the name of caste and the scene thereafter created by the accused petitioners attracted nearby people whereafter he could leave the chamber. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the incident had not taken place in public view. With regard to the submissions of the petitioners that the prosecution was lodged in order to put undue pressure on the petitioners and to take revenge for his non- promotion, this Court is of the view that the same can well be raised at the relevant stage of the proceeding. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Court has only to see from the complaint and the materials on record brought during the inquiry to satisfy itself as to whether prima facie case has been made out or not. From the materials on record including the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution is not required to be quashed at its initial stage. The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )