IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31543 of 2007 AMBIKA PANDEY & BRAJ MOHAN PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate M/s Manish Kumar, Bhaskar Sharkar, Rakesh Kumar For the Opposite Party: Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. J.K.Singh, Advocate 4 5.10.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.3.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.1134 of 2005, Trial No.2215 of 2007 whereby Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Aurangabad took cognizance of offence and summoned the petitioners to face trial under sections 323, 504 of the Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the SC and ST Act. The petitioner submits that even if the case is found to be true, no case under sections3/4 of the SC and ST Act is made out as the offence was not committed in public view. Further more the persons mentioned as witnesses were not present in the office premises. He further submits that in view of the decision in the case of Corgio Pentaih Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2008) 12 S.C.C. 531 the order taking cognizance is bad in law. From the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant was sitting alone in the office. He does not state that any of the witnesses were present in the office at the relevant time. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the order taking cognizance under sections 3/4 of the SC and ST Act is bad in law and the same is set aside. However, this court is not inclined to quash the part of the order by which the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioners to face trial under sections 323 and 504 of the Penal Code. - 2 - KHAN The petitioner if so advised may agitate his grievance at appropriate stage. This application is thus partly allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)