JAGDISH SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Pravin Chandra Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although notice was validly served on O.P. No. 2, the complainant, yet he has not appeared to contest this application.

(2.) THE petitioners seek the quashing of the F.I.R. of S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 34 of 2006 registered under Sections 448, 323, 3/9, 427, 504/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the S.C./S.T. Act") as no offence appears to have been made out against any of the petitioners. It appears that Ram Prasad Sada, the complainant, filed the Complaint Case No. 152 of 2006 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who transmitted the same to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 34 of 2006 was registered. According to the complainant he has a house and a bari over two kathas one dhoor of land appertaining to Khata No.141, Khesra Nos. 221 and 222 where he has been living ever since the time of the Independence. It is alleged that on 28.2.2006 at around 8 A.M. while the complainant was in his house, all the accused persons variously armed with lathi and pistol came over to his house and started abusing him and ordered him to vacate the house. The complainant is said to have given out that he is in possession of the aforesaid lands on the basis of a basgeet purcha but the accused persons started abusing him in filthy language and accused Jagdish Shah exhorted the others to kill him whereupon they started assaulting him with fists, slaps and lathi and when his younger brother, Dhannu Sada and wife Tilia Devi came to his rescue, they too were assaulted in similar manner. It is also allieged that the accused damaged his phoos house causing a loss of Rs. 5000/ - and took away utensils, cloths, ornaments and cereals worth Rs. 5,000/ - -. It is assorted that the accused committed such overt act only because he happened to be a Harijan.

(3.) THE only grievance of the petitioners is that no offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act against the petitioners appears to have been made out since none of the ingredients thereof are available in the complaint petition.