IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2082 of 2011 ASHOK KUMAR MAURYA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 2. 28.1.2011 This petition was repeatedly called out today also but none appeared. The petition was listed yesterday also. The order of summoning dated 20. 12.2010 passed by the Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamui, in Complaint Case No. 498C of 2007 is being sought to be quashed through the present petition. Initially, Munger, SC and S. T. P.S.Case No. 68 of 2004 was instituted on the statement of the informant Bhuneshwar Manjhi. The police reported the case false and submitted Final Report. The report was accepted, as may appear from the order dated 9.5. 2007, Annexure-4, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, and the protest-cum-complaint petition which was filed by the informant was taken up for hearing and, accordingly, after holding of enquiry the same was dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P.C. That order of dismissal dated 2.5.2008 which was passed by Shri R.Chaubey, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jamaui was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui, in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2008. The learned Judge allowed the revision petition by his order dated 7.4.2009 and directed the Magistrate to record his specific finding as regards non-constitution of an offence under S.C. and S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1955. Besides, the learned 2 Judge was also observing that utilizing final report submitted by the police for dismissal of the complaint was completely illegal and erroneous and, as such, directed the Magistrate to pass a speaking order. The learned Magistrate has passed the order on 20.12.2010 which runs in one line as follows: “ifjoknh dk le;kosnu fn;k x;kA okn vkt laKku ds fcUnq ij vkns'kkFkZ fuf'pr gSA ifjoknh dk fy, x, 'kiFk ij C;ku ,oa tkWap lf{k;ksa ds lk{; dk voyksdu fd;k ftlls izrhr gksrk gS fd ifjokn i= es uketn vfHk;qDr ds fo#n~/k /kkjk 3(10) S.C. S.T. ds vUrxZr izFke n`"V;k ekeyk curk gqvk izrhr gksrk gSA” If one peruses the order dated 20.12.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 498C of 2007 in the light of the direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui, in Cr. Revision No. 55 of 2008, one may say that the order could not be said to be passed in consideration of the direction issued to the Magistrate by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judge was issuing specific direction to the Magistrate to pass order by properly discussing the statements of the witnesses as to how a case under SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out or was not made out. Unfortunately, the Magistrate proceeded to pass the order without making any reference to a single line of the statement of the witnesses recorded in the enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. If the learned Sessions Judge was directing the Magistrate to pass a speaking order as to how an offence under Section 3(X) of the Act was made out, it was expected of the Magistrate to consider the evidence by discussing the same in 3 the light of the provision of that particular section of the offence. That not having been done, I find that the order was completely erroneous inasmuch as the it does not discuss as to how that particular offence was made out on facts of the case. In the above view, in spite of the Advocate not appearing to support the petition, I direct the Magistrate to read the evidence carefully in the light of the provision of section 3(X) of the S.C. and ST( Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1955 and consider whether the act complained of was committed by the accused person with an intent to humiliate a member of the S.C. and S.T. in public view and thereafter pass a fresh order. The petition is allowed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)