IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20713 of 2007 1. Siya Saran Rai S/O Late Dasai Rai 2. Suresh Rai, 3. Baiju Rai @ Bauju Rai Both sons of Siya Saran Rai All residents of Village Varuna Rasulpur, Police Station -Sarairanjan, District-Samastipur 4. Triveni Das Son of Ram Khelawan Das resident of Village- Kisanpur, Police Station-Sarai Ranjan, District-Samastipur. -------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2.Shankar Ram, Son of Late Harihar Ram, resident of Village Nagagama Tola Piparpanti, Police Station Dalsinghsarai, District-Samastipur. ----------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- 4 26.09.2008 Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners who figure as accused in Complaint Case no.188 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 17.8.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsinghsarai , whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”). According to the complainant, Shankar Ram who has been impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, the complainant, belongs to the Chamar caste. During the marriage season, he is engaged in playing - 2 - the band in a Band Party .It is alleged that on the relevant date the accused persons came to the house of the complainant to engage the Band Party on the occasion of marriage ceremony of their relative, for which the complainant demanded a sum of Rs.4000/- but the accused persons were willing to offer only Rs.2500/- which was not acceptable to the complainant. Angered thereby an altercation took place, in course whereof accused no.1 abused the complainant by referring to his caste and when the complainant protested, all the accused started hurling some more filthy abuses. The grievance of the petitioners is that from the averments made in the complaint petition and the materials available on the record, no offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act is made out as the ingredients therefor are absent and, as such, the court below had acted with material irregularity in taking cognizance thereunder. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that to make out an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act the alleged insult and intimidation should take place within public view. That is not the situation in the instant case since the entire occurrence, as is apparent from the reading of the complaint petition, took place inside the house of the complainant. I am in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There are catena of decisions of this Court to the effect that the courts while taking cognizance under the SC/ST Act have to be more careful in examining the allegations as also the materials in support of such allegations with a purpose to find - 3 - out whether all the ingredients constituting the offence described under the SC/ST Act have been made out at all. To my mind no offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act has been made out against the petitioners although offence under the Penal Code stands since they are not the subject matter of challenge. In the result, the application succeeds in part. The impugned order taking cognizance is quashed to the extent of the cognizance under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. So far as the cognizance under the Penal Code is concerned, it has neither been sought to be challenged nor is there any illegality therein. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-