IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.820 of 2009 1. RAJESHWAR SHARMA S/O LATE RAMDEO SINGH 2. PAWAN SHARMA S/O LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH 3. GUDDU SHARMA @ GUDDU SINGH S/O RAMASHRAY SINGH ------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NARESH MANJHI S/O LATE RAMESHWAR MANJHI, VILLAGE DIHARA, POST KHAJURI, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT PATNA ------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar-1 And Mr. Shishir Kumar For the State: Mr. Gopesh Kumar,APP For the Opposite Party: Mr.Prabhat Kumar ***** 4. 6.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This revision application is directed against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by Special Judge, S.C.& S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Patna in Special Case No. 63 of 2008 by which the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge has been rejected. The prosecution case initiated in written application of Naresh Manjhi is on 16.1.2007 while the informant and co-accused Santosh Sharma were at their field, Santosh Sharma cut the ridge, extorting Sala Harijan - 2 - was intending to irrigate his field, first that was not possible rather he was bound to work as bonded labour. Thereafter informant fled from there, came to his house where six accused persons including these petitioners came, assaulted him by means of danda, and extorted repeating the above version. Differences were on the point of irrigation, so according to learned counsel for the parties, the matter was reconciled by the parties. A compromise petition filed in the case even then petitioners have not been discharged. According to learned counsel, it was Ravi Sharma who shot the firing so he was solely responsible for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. The offence for abusing in name of caste is made at two different places, one in the field and another in the house of the informant. The abuse given inside the house is not within public view, so the vague allegation of abusing the informant in name of his caste in his house shall not constitute an offence under section 3(i)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act. Thereafter rest of the offences i.e. - 3 - sections 325 and 504 IPC are compoundable though the offence under section 325 IPC is compoundable with permission of the Court which is for the Court to decide if permission can be given though the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no grievous injury was found rather no injury at all was found but in the case no prayer for compromise was ever pressed rather a discharge petition was filed which is rejected. Petitioners are well advised to approach the trial court that is Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Patna in Special Case no. 63 of 2008 arising out of Naubatpur P.S. Case No.13 of 2007 by filing a proper compromise petition for compromising the case for their accusation exonerating others which shall be decided taking into consideration all the circumstances discussed above. With such observation, this criminal revision application is disposed of. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI/A.F.R.