IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57287 of 2007 KRISHNANDAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE GAJO SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-PARSHURAM COLONY, SANDALPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION-ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA, AT PRESENT INCHARGE HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, BAKHTIYARPUR, POLICE STATION-BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. --PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. –OPPOSITE PARTY FOR THE PETITIONER : M/s. Ajoy kr. Thakur & Amir Alam FOR THE STATE : 2 09.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This is an application for quashing an order dated 08th September, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, in Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case no. 95 of 2005 giving rise to G.R. No. 337 of 2005 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i) and 10(vii) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this case is based on a written application 2 of the informant alleging that he was one of the candidate for an election of School Education Council at Government Middle School, Bakhtiyarpur during which he was assaulted by reason of his caste but no where it is stated that the accused person, being the petitioner, is not member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The non-mentioning of above fact alone is sufficient to bring the case out of purview of the provisions contemplated under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 531, wherein in paragraph 6 of the judgment it has clearly been held “According to the basis ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant- accused was not a member of the Schedule Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent no.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant accused was not a member of the Scheduled 3 AAhmad/ Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of the process of law.” At the same time, learned counsel expressed his inability to make this Court aware about the present stage of the case since five years period have already lapsed after passing of the impugned order, the trial might have commenced or arrived at concluding stage. In such circumstances, it is also submitted that this application be disposed of with a liberty to agitate the point aforementioned supported by decision of the Apex Court before the trial court which shall pass appropriate order taking into consideration all aspects and law of the land. With the above observation and liberty, this application stands disposed of. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) 4