IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of caste-based abuse must occur in public to invoke the SC/ST Act, and that legal proceedings stemming from private disputes may be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 13.04.2015 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Katihar in Pranpur P.S. Case No. 244 of 2013, G.R. No. 3863 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Dhirendra Ravidas gave a written complaint that on 25.12.2013/ 26.12.2013 at 12 in the night that petitioner alongwith three other persons entered into his house and started abusing him by caste name and asked the informant as to why he has cut the crops from his agriculture plots and also asked the informant to remove his temporary dwelling house. On protest, being made by the informant, accused persons started assaulting the informant and snatched the Silver Chain and other ornaments from his wife and also assaulted the daughter of the informant and thereafter fled away.

4. The root cause of the institution of present case is dispute related with Plot Nos. 789, 790 and 795 under R.S. Khata No. 3 of Village-Kashiyari, P.S.-Pranpur, District-Katihar, which belonged to one Bhaldeo Das, who had died long before the R.S. operation and hence the lands were recorded jointly in the name of Mansaro Devi widow of Late Bhaddo Das and his daughter-in-law Ajani Devi widow of Late Narayan Das. One Ghotai Ravidas was recorded as Sikmidar under both the abovementioned ladies. After the Revisional Survey operation, the maternal grandfather of the petitioner namely Late Ganesh Kant Choudhary purchased the above noted lands from Ajani Devi widow of Late Narayan Das vide registered sale deed and as Mansaro Devi had no share in the said lands as Bhaddo Das has died long before 1973. Some other lands were also purchased by Late Ganesh Kant Choudhary but the said lands are not in question.

5. After purchasing the said lands, said Ghotai Ravidas failed to divide the produce with the said Late Ganesh Kant Choudhary, who filed a Rent Suit no. 33/67 before the court of Munsif, Katihar and got the Sikmi interest auction sold vide Execution Case No. 1/68. After the said Auction Sale, said Ganesh Kant Choudhary became the absolute owner of the above noted lands.

6. Most. Ajani Devi, daughter-in-law of Late Bhaddo Das filed a Title Suit No. 3891/1964 at Katihar for declaration of her title to the exclusion of Most. Mansaro Devi and during pendency of the said suit Most. Ajani Devi died and her daughter Anandi Devi after getting herself substituted in the said suit continued the said suit in which judgment and decree was passed in her favour declaring her as absolute owner.

7. It is worth to be mentioned that the said land was purchased by Late Ganesh Kant Choudhary who confirmed his absolute title by virtue of the said judgment and decree, but one Purni Devi widow of Late Chotai Ravidas during Chakbandi operation got her name recorded as owner in respect of the above noted lands against the auction sale documents in favour of Late Ganesh Kant Choudhary. After the above noted Chakbandi entry in respect of the above noted lands and order of the Chakbandi Officer widow of Ganesh Kant Choudhary and his only daughter Chandrawati Devi came before this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the Chakbandi entry vide CWJC No. 2745/1983 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the entire Chakbandi order and directed the Chakbandi Officer to enter the name of the Revisionist Petitioner, the legal heirs of Late Ganesh Kant Choudhary, but in the meanwhile the Chakbandi operation was abolished by the Government of Bihar and the order of this Hon'ble Court was advised to be carried out on one pretext or the other.

8. In the meanwhile daughter and son-in-law of Purvi D