The main legal point established is that for an offense under section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act to be proven, the insult or intimidation must occur within public view, and the accused's membership in the scheduled caste must be established.

JUDGMENT :

1. In all these petitions common question of fact and complaint including the cognizance order are the subject matter that is why all these cases have been heard together with consent of the parties.

2. The notices have been issued upon the O.P.No.2 by order dated 08.10.2020 and the office note suggest that notice have been effected upon the O.P.No.2 however, on repeated call nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

3. In all these petitions prayer is made for quashing the order dated 3.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in connection with SC/ST Case No.12 of 2019/ C.P.No.286 of 2019, however, cognizance has been taken under section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the summoning order is dated 20.12.2019, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad.

4. The written complaint was filed alleging therein that the prosecution case arises out of a written complaint dated 23.1.2019 of the complainant dated 23.1.2019. The complainant harijan by caste and falls under scheduled caste category while all other accused persons are members of non-SC/ST category. He is a workman working in Hariajam colliery of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Mugma. The accused no.6, Chinta Das wrongly submitted an application dated 01.10.2015 to the management of M/s ECL complaining that Manu Bouri, the complainant, is the son of Bholu Bouri and not of Badal Bouri and he was wrongly taken employment by falsely describing himself as the son of Bina Bourin and she has also submitted a genealogical table which is baseless and not correct. The accused no.6 has furnished such information so that the complainant can be dismissed from service and take revenge of long standing enmity between the accused no.6 and the complainant. The accused no.6 Chinta Das has no authority or has any authority to submit such genealogical table and therefore the same is liable to be rejected. On coming to learn about these facts he went to the house of accused no.6 on which Chinta Das questioned the complainant as to how he entered his house being a Harijan. Chinta Das thereafter caught hold of the collar of his shirt and pushed him out of her house. He thereafter went to meet the accused persons and enquired about the about facts. The management thereafter called the accused no.6 Chinta Das and all the accused persons abused the complainant by calling name of his caste harijan and turned him out of the office. The complainant informed the S.P., Dhanbad in advance with an expectation that action would be taken but the police did not take any action and being left with no other remedy the complainant is filing the complaint.

5. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners are the employees of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. The O.P.no.2 has been charge sheeted by the company for fraudulent employment in the company and subsequently he has been dismissed on 18.8.2018 and after dismissal from service the O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint on 23.1.2019. He submits that no ingredient of section 3(i)(s) of the said Act is made out and nothing has been happened in the public view and the case of the petitioners are fully covered in the light of the judgment in the case of “Swaran Singh and Others v. State, through Standing Counsel and Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435”.

6. The learned counsels for the respondent State submits that the learned court after looking into the enquiry witnesses has taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

7. The Court has perused the complaint petition and finds that in the complaint itself it has been disclosed that the O.P.No.2 has been dismissed by the company and finds that it has been alleged in the paragraph no.8 that what has happened that was indoor of the office. The public view has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of