IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1040 of 2009 ABHAY NATH JHA, SON OF DR. S.N. JHA, RESIDENT OF MIHIRKUNJ APARTMENT, PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT-PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, ESTATE OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT-PATNA. ... PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. REKHA, WIFE OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-KANTI FACTORY MORE, GANDHI NAGAR, P.S.- AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA ... OPP. PARTIES ----------- 3 24.09.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner prays for quashing the prosecution of Patna SC/ST Police Case No. 28 of 2009, instituted by one Smt Rekha wife of respondent no.2 under Section 3(1)(X) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”) and Sections 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Estate Office, Patna. It would appear from the prosecution case that occurrence took place inside the chamber of the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, the complainant visited the 2 IOC office to lodge complaint regarding illegality in selection process of L.P.G. distributorship. The complainant in the process entered the official chamber of petitioner who asked her to take a chair. The complainant alleged that in course of talk, the accused asked complainant about her caste. When the petitioner came to learn that the complainant belongs to SC/ST Category, he became angry and insulted her by saying how she has submitted application in General Category, when she belongs to SC category as „Dhobin‟. The petitioner fumed that this chair now needs to be washed. After coming out of the chamber, the complainant narrated the incident to other witnesses. It appears from the prosecution case itself that the complainant was aggrieved as she was not selected for grant of dealership of Indian Oil Corporation. Heard Mr. kalidas Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Anil Kumar Sinha and Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Mr. Amarnath Deo Standing Counsel X for the State. 3 Mr. chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no offence under Sections 504, 506 and 427 and even under section 3(1)(X) would be made out as the occurrence took place in the official chamber of the petitioner and not in public view. It is well settled that the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act would be made out only, if the offence takes place within public view. He further submits that complainant has maliciously instituted this case, in order to wreak vengeance as she was not selected for L.P.G. distributorship. In the case of Brahmdeo Jha & Ors vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2005(2) PLJR 493 this Court has held that the occurrence taking place in the courtyard of the accused would not come within the purview of public view and consequently no case under SC/ST Act would be made. The State counsel is not able to controvert the legal position. The petitioner states that the police has already completed the investigation and final report in favour of petitioner has been 4 prepared and forwarded to the learned Magistrate on 31.03.2010. As police has already submitted final form in favour of petitioner, I do not find any point in passing any positive order quashing the prosecution or issuing notice to the opposite party no.2. As such in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order in the case preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal writ Application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the learned Magistrate by FAX at the cost of petitioner. Ashwini/- ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J. )