OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) THE petitioners alongwith another have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 553(C) of 206 and have prayed for the quashing of order dated 17.8.2006 passed therein by Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners and others under Sections 341/323/420/504/34 I.P.C. and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"). The complainant, Jitendra Kumar, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, on 3.7.2006 inter alia alleging that on the previous day at around 4 P.M. the complainant had gome to take Rs. 500/ - which was due from the petitioners against washing of their clothes but the petitioners had asked him to come later. However, the complainant requested to pay his money as he was going to vacate the house whereupon the petitioners became annoyed and started abusing him with words like "Sala" "Dhobi" "Tobi" "Pig" "Kamina" and also assaulted him with stick. It is also alleged that in the meantime Suresh Yadav also arrived and started abusing him with the words like "Ulloo Ka Patha", "Sala Dhobi", "son of Harijan" and also suggested that he should be thrown into the Ganga after killing him. Suresh Yadav is said to have assaulted him with slaps and fists and taken away his wrist -watch worth Rs. 400/ -.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not the residents of the place of occurrence as alleged in the complaint petition and that the complainant and the petitioners are unknown to each other and as such there was no reason for the petitioners to have insulted and assaulted the complainant. While denying the allegations of there being dues against the washing of clothes of the petitioners, it was submitted that no offence, as mentioned above, either under the Penal Code or the SC/ST Act, can be said to have been made out against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance in a mechanical way. In this connection it was sought to be pointed out that an offence under the SC/ST Act would be possible if such insult of the member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was in public view but in the instant case the complainant had not stated as to who had viewed the alleged abuses hurled at him allegedly by the petitioners and whether such abuses were, in fact, watched by public. It has further been submitted that petitioner No. 1 had lodged a First Information Report against one Mahendra Prasad Singh and his son, Ujjawal Prasad Singh and others and that they were close friends of the complainant and this case had been filed by way of a counter blast.