The offense under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is only established when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment solely because of their belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Suraj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 17.05.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No.69/2013, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

3. The complainant has filed the complaint alleging therein that the O.P.No.2 has filed a complaint case no.69 of 2013 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih against eight persons namely, Tulsi Nayak, Sahdeo Nayak, Moti Nayak, Ugan Nayak, Leelawati Devi, Sumitra Devi, Gita Devi and Rukmani Devi for alleged offence committed under sections 147, 148, 477, 379, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alleging therein that complainant got the land by virtue of Hukumnama and cultivation is only source of income of the complainant. On the date of occurrence the accused person came to the land of the complainant and started cutting the crop of Pigeon Pea(Arhar dal) by Tanghi and destroyed the plant of pigeon pea. The complainant and his family members requested not to cut the plant of the pigeon pea then the accused person threatened the complainant. When the witness namely Bhuneshwar Das tried to save the complainant then Ugan Nayak and Sahdeo Nayak beaten the Bhuneshwar Das by lathi. It was further alleged that the accused person abused the complainant.

4. Mr. Ambastha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case is arising out of a land dispute and the petitioners have received the land by way of Annexure-2 by Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee and the said document is annexed as Annexure-2. He further submits that the O.P.No.2 was made accused by the petitioner in case under sections 341, 323, 324 and 34 of the IPC which was the subject matter in G.R.Case No.1779/2001 in which the O.P.no.2 has been convicted by the trial court and subsequently the O.P.No.2 and others have been released under the Probation of Offenders Act and thereafter the present complaint case has been filed and the learned court has taken the cognizance. He further submits that in the entire complaint it has not been discussed that the petitioners were not the member of scheduled caste/tribes and the complainant was intentionally insulted. To buttress his this argument he relied in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and Others” reported in J.T.2008 (9) SC 543. Paragraph no.8 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

“8. “Criminal intimidation” has been defined in Section 503 which reads as under:

“503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.”

5. Mr. Suraj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that there is allegation and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He relied in the case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors which is a reportable judgment in Cr.Appeal No.967 of 2021. Paragraph no.9 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

9. Considering the aforesaid legislative history which brought to insertion of proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, by which, even the Special Court so established or specified for the purpose of providing for speedy trial the power to directly to take cognizance of offences under the Atrocities Act, 1989, the issue/q