IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.725 of 2008 1.DASRATH PRASAD 2.AJEET KUMAR ……Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR …… Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr.Anjani Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr.J.K.Singh No.1,A.P.P. For the O.P : None. 6 27.1.2011 The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in S.C./S.T. P.S. (Biharsharif) Case No.10 of 2007 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 467,468,471,420,406 and 323 of I.P.C. and section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act. This Court on 10.4.2008 issued notice to O.P.No.2 and stayed further proceeding before the learned court below in connection with S.C./S.T. P.S. Case ( Biharsharif) Case No.10 of 2007. It appears that even after service of notice no one appears on behalf of O.P.No.2 though name of one Rakesh Kumar, Advocate appears in the cause list. The matter was adjourned on 25.1.2011 on account of non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even today also none appears on behalf of O.P. In the complaint petition the allegation is against 2 petitioner no.1 that being karta of the family he sold his land of plot no.1, khata no.170 an area of one katha six dhur thirteen and half dhurkies of Mauza Kosut to O.P.no.2 by taking consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- but in the sale deed the consideration amount has been recorded as Rs.23,000/- and thereafter the informant started constructing the house then the Officer-in-Charge, Deepnagar Police Station came and asked to stop the construction work because the land in question is Gairmajarua Aam land. It is also alleged that petitioners refused to return the consideration money. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the land in question is a gairmajarua land. The other allegation is that the informant alongwith the witnesses, namely, Bhagwan Jee Paswan, Vijay Paswan and Manoj Choudhary and her husband Chhottey Paswan came to the house of the accused persons and conveyed that informant has been cheated whereupon both the accused persons started abusing the informant and her husband by calling their caste name and assaulted by fists and slaps. Annexure-2 further depicts that Baleshwar Paswan had acquired the land through State case No.76-L.S.- 195-6-195-7. Subsequently vide sale deed contained in 3 Annexure- 2 Baleshwar Paswan sold the land to Ram Chandra Prasad and vide Annexure-2/1 Ramchandra Prasad sold the land in question to Smt. Janki Devi wife of Sri Dashrath Prasad (petitioner no.1) and the said land was transferred on 17.12.2005 by the petitioner no.1 in favour of O.P.No.2 being the karta of the joint family. But the present complaint was filed on 5.1.2007 without challenging the sale deed in question. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence under section 3(x) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out since averment in the last paragraph of the complaint petition is specific that O.P.No.2 went to the house of the complainant then she was abused by calling her caste name. The house of the petitioner cannot be treated to be a place of public view. Hence, no case under section of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. It is also contended that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case under the Act. Considering the aforesaid submission it appears that O.P.No.2 has not taken any step for setting aside the sale deed rather it appears that for redressal of civil dispute criminal forum has been utilized which has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation 4 Versus N.E.P.C. India Ltd. And others reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 736. Paragraph 13 of the Judgment reads as follows:- “13. However, there is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases.This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/ families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be en- tangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” The aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court squarely covers the present case. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that no case under sections 467,468,406,420 and 323 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. So far the offence under section 3(X) of the S.C.& S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned the same is only made out when some member of S.C. and S.T. is being insulted or being intimidated with intent to humiliate in public view, admittedly as per the accusation the O.P. no.2 was abused by calling her caste’s name when she went to the 5 house of petitioners hence the house of petitioners can not be treated as a place in the public view. More over it is not alleged that others were present at P.O. It is well settled law that merely calling some one by caste name does not ipso facto attract provisions of S.C. S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On consideration of the aforesaid facts I find that the case was maliciously lodged by the complainant for redressal of civil dispute. Hence, the order taking cognizance dated 24.10.2007 including the entire prosecution of S.C./S.T. P.S. ( Biharsharif) Case No.10/07 pending before the learned J.M., Ist Class, Nalanda, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Anilkr.sinha (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)