IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8461 of 2008 1. Bijali Yadav @ Bijoy Kumar Yadav 2. Sarita Devi 3. Bhuvneshwari Yadav…….Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ---------------------------------- 04. 12.09.2011 This is an application for quashing the order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in G.R. No.1086 of 2006 vide Singheshwar P. S. Case No.69 of 2006 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 341,342,323,307,364,504/34 of the I.P.C. and offence under Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. Act and has issued process against the petitioners for appearance. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Allegation is that informant’s son had gone to collect wood for fuel. He was abused by these petitioners in name of his caste ‘Dusadh’, slapped, when the informant went to ask them, she was also abused in name of her caste rather she was assaulted by means of a rod on different parts of her body. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that informant compromised the case, so the prosecution be quashed. On the other point, it is said that any of the Sections of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out as abuse in name of caste was not in public view and for other offences under I.P.C., it is said that none of the Sections of the I.P.C. is applicable. Assault was negligible even not 2 constituting the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. In that connection, A.I.R. 1996 (S.C.) 1723 is referred, which is at all not applicable in the case as concluded after trial taking several circumstances of the case into consideration. In the instant case, there is specific allegation that informant and her son was assaulted by these petitioners, if not sufficient for constituting offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. that easily can be taken into consideration while framing of the charge in the case, but never can be taken for quashing of the prosecution. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that if abuse in name of caste to humiliate is not given in public view no offence is made out under Section 3(1) (X) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but in the instant case, both informant and her son are abused in name of their caste in public view that is open field and open place in front of informant’s house. (2009) 16 SCC1 is there for direction to this Court that compromise may never be taken for quashing of any prosecution case, specifically when offences are non- compoundable. Finding no ground to quash, this application is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to look into the circumstance under which informant was forced to file compromise in non-compoundable case. Vikash (Mandhata Singh, J.)