IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.772 OF 2008 1. SATTO SADA, SON OF LATE NANKU SADA 2. RAMCHANDRA SAHU, SON OF LATE CHHATHU SAHU 3. BISESWAR PASWAN, SON OF YADU PASWAN ALL RESIDENT OF VILAGE MASANKHUN, POLICE STATION KUSHESWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LALIYA DEVI, WIFE OF GANESHI SADA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MASANKHUN, POLICE STATION KUSHESWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA …………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ******* 5 08/04/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 04.08.2007 passed in Kusheshwar Asthan Police Station Case No. 128 of 2003 by which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul at Benipur has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 452, 326 & 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i-x) (i-xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation in the First Information Report is that Laliya Devi was sleeping along with her daughter when it is alleged that Jiwachh Sah and one another person came there and threw acid resulting in injuries to the informant and the informant’s daughter. A protest -cum complaint petition was filed in which it is said that apart from Jiwachh Sah, one Jitendra Sah was also involved in the said occurrence. During investigation, it appears that a petition was filed on behalf of the daughter of the informant in which the names of these petitioners has transpired and it is alleged against them that they were the persons who had thrown the acid. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition has been filed after gaining over the daughter of the informant or has been filed through her, although the petition is a completely spurious petition, filed to protect the actual culprits in this case. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the informant and his daughter are changing their statement from time to time and it is only after two years that such an allegation has been made against these petitioners which goes to show that it is false, malicious and malafide and made to protect the actual culprits. All these aspects of the matter cannot be examined at the stage of cognizance as it would amount to making comment on the quality of the investigation. However, this Court finds that the imposition of Section 3(1-x) (1-xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not applicable in this case as Section 3 (1-x) (1-xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act envisage that whoever not being the member of the Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes commits the following offence would be liable for trial under the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners belong to the same category as the informant and as such, this Court quashes the order of cognizance under Section 3(1-x) (1- xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This application is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)