IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56084 of 2007 1. DAYANAND SINGH, SON OF LATE ACHMIT LAL SINGH 2. RAKESH KUMAR YADAV @ RAKESH KUMAR 3. RAMANAND YADAV, BOTH SONS OF DAYANAND SINGH 4. SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH @ SUSHIL SINGH 5. NAGESHWAR SINGH, BOTH SONS OF NANDI LAL SINGH 6. RANA SINGH, SON OF SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH 7. RANJU KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NAGESHWAR SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELGARA, P.S. RANIGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. 8. SURENDRA SINGH @ SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV, SON OF KAMLESHWARI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARUVAILI, P.S. KUMARKHAND, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF JAMUN MEHTAR, WIFE OF RAVINDRA PRASAD OF VILLAGE BELSARA, P.S. RANIGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 4 30.3.2010 Heard the parties. Notices were issued on the opposite party no. 2 in this case however, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to press this case. The petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (iii) (xi) and (xv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act dated 15.3.2007, passed by the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Complaint Case No. 1272 (c) of 2005. The allegation is that the petitioners are said to have committed highway robbery from the complainant and had thereafter also abused her by taking her caste name. It is also alleged that the petitioners are trying to disturb her matrimonial life, as they are aggrieved by the fact that she being a ‘Harijan’ and had married Ravindra Yadav @ Ravindra Kumar who belongs to a different caste. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is enmity between the petitioners and the complainant’s husband. It is stated that petitioner no. 2 has filed a case one month prior to the occurrence against the husband of the complainant which is contained in annexure-2 and as such submits that the entire allegations are false and fabricated. No theft etc. was committed by the petitioners and the case has been filed merely to humiliate the petitioners. Specifically referring to Sections 3 (i) (iii) (xi) and (xv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on plain reading of the First Information Report the ingredients under Sub section (i), sub section (iii), sub section (xi) and sub section (xv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out in the complaint petition. On perusal of the complaint petition, I find that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are correct inasmuch as the complainant was not forced to drink or eat any obnoxious substance; nor was she undressed or degraded; assaulted in order to outrage her modesty and forced to leave her house or village. As far as allegation of taking the caste name and abusing the petitioner, it is submitted that it was made in a lonely place. It is further submitted that merely taking of the caste name and abusing the other side, does not in itself amount to an offence under Section 3(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act. Be that as it may, I find that the order of cognizance under Section 3 (i) (iii) (xi) and (xv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of 3 Atrocities) Act is not made out against the petitioners and as such I quash the order of cognizance as far as offences under Section S.C./S.T. Act are concerned. This application is partly allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)