IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54175 of 2007 1. Ram Naresh Yadav S/O Buteli Yadav. 2. Narayan Yadav @ Laxmi Narayan Yadav, S/O Ram Naresh Yadav. Both residents of village- Rahua, P.S. Rosera, District- Samastipur..................................................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Bahadur Paswan, resident of village- Rahua, P.S. Rosera, District- Samastipur......................Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P.No. 2 : Mr.(Dr.) Om Prakash Om, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 04. 26.03.10 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, in Rosera P.S. Case No. 103 of 2005 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, has taken cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 447, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and the prayer is also for quashing the order dated 03.09.2007,particularly cognizance under the provisions of S.C./S.T.Act, passed by the learned Sessions 2 Judge, Samastipur, in Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2007 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, has refused to interfere with the order dated 07.12.2006 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, whereby the cognizance is taken against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no allegation about abusing the informant by calling his caste name nor there is any specific allegation under Section 3(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act in the fardbeyan and in this connection learned counsel has cited a decision reported in 2009 (2) P.L.J.R. 471 (Narendra Singh @ Narendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and another in which this Hon’ble Court has held that “though the occurrence took place in the open field but there is nothing on record that any member of public was present in the open field hence it was held that no offence under Section 3(X) of the S.C./S.T.Act is made out. From perusal of the fardbeyan, it appears that the petitioners not only abused and assaulted the informant in the open field 3 but also to the wife and daughter of the informant. It is further alleged that accused, Narayan Deo snatched the silver chain from the wife of the informant and the occurrence was seen by the co-villagers, Manoj Kumar, Jitendra Jha and others. On the basis of the allegations levelled in the aforesaid fardbeyan, Rosera P.S. Case No. 103 of 2005 under Sections 323, 341, 379,504, 447 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered but no case was registered under Section 3(x) of S.C./S.T.Act though after investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under Sections 323, 341, 379,504, 447 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act. Consequently, on 07.12.2006, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, took cognizance after going through the materials available in the case diary under Sections 341, 323, 447, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the S.C./S.T.Act. The petitioners challenged the entire order of cognizance dated 07.12.2006 in Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2007 before the learned 4 Sessions Judge, Samastipur, which was dismissed on 03.09.2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, on the ground that the occurrence took place in the open field and hence it was within the public view. Perused the fardbeyan, the order taking cognizance as well as the order dated 03.09.2007 passed in Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, from which it appears that before learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2007, the entire order of cognizance was challenged by the petitioners whereas in the present quashing application cognizance being taken under Section 3(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is mainly challenged. From perusal of the fardbeyan, it appears that the occurrence took place in the open field and the occurrence was seen by the two witnesses, Manoj Kumar and jitendra Jha hence it can not be said that the occurrence could not take place within the public view. Section 3(x)of the S.C./S.T. Act stipulates as follows: “Intentionally insults or intimidates 5 with intend or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”. In the present case, certain facts are admitted, the informant is a member of scheduled caste, known to accused,the occurrence has taken place in the open field and it has been seen by atleast two F.I.R.named witnesses, hence, it can not be said that at present prima facie case under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Act is not made out. In this context I refer to the judgment reported in 2008(8) S.C.C. 434 in the case of Mosiruddin Munshi Vs. Md. Siraj and others in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the occurrence took place on the gate of the house and the gate of the house was treated to be certainly a place to have a public view and in the present case informant being Scheduled Caste was abused and assaulted in the open field and the occurrence was seen by two witnesses hence the place of occurrence was definitely within the public view hence this case comes within the preview of Section 6 U.K. 3(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act. The judgment citied by the petitioners has no application in the present case as in the cited case no body saw the occurrence. Hence, the quashing application is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to raise these issues at the time of framing of charge if charges already have not been framed in the case. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)