IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28435 of 2009 1. Balram Sah, S/o Darweshwar Sah 2. Rajo Rai, S/o Dhani Roy 3. Manoj Kumar Sah @ Manoj Sah, S/o Balram Sah 4. Ramji Roy, S/o Bhaso Rai 5. Asharfi Sah S/o Dhanudhari Sah Kamleshwari Sah, S/o Late Munna Sah, All residents of village-Kasimpur Diara, P.S. Nayaon, District- Begusarai. ………….. Petitioners. Versus State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Sadanand Roy For the State: Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. 2 16-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state on the point of admission. This petition under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the order dated 18-08-2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Begusarai Schedule Caste P.S. Case No. 95 of 2005 registered for the offence under Sections-452/376/511/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1) (xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In my view, this petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. The above-said Schedule Caste P.S. Case No. 95 of 2005 was registered against petitioners on the basis of written report filed by informant Jaymanti Devi alleging therein that the petitioner No. 3, namely, Manoj Kumar Sah tried to 2 commit rape upon her and rest petitioners facilitated the aforesaid petitioner No. 3 in committing the above-said offence and when the informant tried to register a case, petitioners obstructed her and gave threatening of dire consequences calling her caste name. After institution of the aforesaid case, the matter was investigated and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections-452, 376, 511, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(X)(XII) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Having receipt of the case diary, the learned court below took cognizance for the above-said offences passing the impugned order dated 18.08.2007 which is under challenge before this court. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no case under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out and the absurdity of the prosecution case is apparent from the very face of the written report itself. It is contended by him that as a matter of fact, no such occurrence took place and the informant has lodged the aforesaid case to harass and humiliate the petitioners who are none else than her co-villagers. It is well settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the accused. Since the petitioners have challenged the cognizance order, in my view, this court cannot and should not interfere with the impugned 3 order on the ground of defence as taken by the petitioners. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court has no option but to dispose of this petition with this observation that petitioners may raise all the above-said pleas before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of charge and furthermore, if the petitioners raise the aforesaid points before the trial court at the time of framing of charge, the learned trial court shall consider the above-said pleas, particularly, keeping in mind the materials available in the case diary without being prejudiced by this order. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)