1. The petitioner who is one of the persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 52 of 1998 and has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Cr. Rev. No. 169 of 2005 whereby he dismissed the said revision preferred against the order dated 5.3.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, in the said complaint case whereby he had summoned the accused including the petitioner to face the trial for offence under Section 323 and 436 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the S.C./S.T. Act)

2. One Chandra Lekha Devi, the complainant, impleaded as opposite party no. 2, herein filed the said complaint on 24.2.1998 inter alia alleging that at around 10.00 P.M. on 22.2.1998 while she was waiting for her husband, the accused persons including the petitioner arrived hurling abuses. It is alleged that Ram Lakhan Mahto uttered

<span class="Hfont"> **dgka gS lkyk nqlk/k izdk’kok] blh us iqfyl dks p<+k&c<+k dj esjs Hkrhtk lquhyok dks oksV ds le; ekj f[kyok;k gS lkys ds ?kj Qwad nks A**

Further alleged that on hearing the orders of Ram Lakhan Mahto, Sunil pulled the straw from the north eastern end of the house and set fire to it by means of match box. The complainant is said to have raised hulla and some how managed to extricate her children from within the house. It is also alleged that all the accused assaulted the complainant with kicks and fists and dragged her towards the burning hut in order to throw her inside the inferno but arrival of the witnesses saved her and her children. It is said that in the process of attempting to throw her into the fire, half portion of her Saree got burnt and her hands and legs got singed. It has been stated that the house was a residential one and in the fire her bedding, clothes, utensils food items, a Chowki and a Khatia were completely burnt causing loss of Rs. 3,000/-. It is said that the husband of the complainant is a constable in the Home guard and on the date of occurrence, which was the date for elections for the Samastipur Assembly seat, he was on patrolling duty with the police and when at around 3.00 P.M. Sunil with his henchmen wanted to create disturbance at the polling booth the police resorted to Lathi charge. Sunil sustained injuries and that was the genesis for the present occurrence. The complainant is said to have waited for arrival of her husband and when he arrived in the afternoon of the following day, the instant case was lodged.

3. The complainant-opposite party has appeared and has filed a counter-affidavit stating detail facts and annexing copies of depositions and orders.

4. The facts which emerge from the submissions of both the parties is that at the very outset following an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. the learned Magistrate by his order dated 3.11.1998 took cognizance under Sections 436 and 323 LP.C. as also Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act against all the accused except the petitioner herein. The said order was challenged by the complainant in Cr. Rev. No. 56 of 1999 and by order dated 27.9.1999 the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, was pleased to allow the application and the impugned order with respect to allow the application and the impugned order with respect to not issuing summons against the petitioner herein was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate for further enquiry. Following the remand, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 5.3.2005, was pleased to hold that a prima facie case under the aforesaid sections was also made out against the petitioner and directed for summons to be issued to him. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred Cr. Rev. No. 169 of 2005 before the sessions court which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge.

5. It