JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the Complaint Case No.294 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Class, cum Special Judge, Godda in connection with Complaint Case No.294 of 2018, S.C./S.T. Case No.05/2019, pending in the same learned court.

2. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the case has been registered on the basis of written complaint lodged by the informant namely Pinki Devi before the Special Judge, Godda alleging therein that the on dated 29.9.2017 at 4 O’clock in the evening at her house the petitioners and other co-accused persons entered in her house and abused her family members with caste remark. It is alleged that on dated 20.04.2018 at 12 O’clock when her daughters were returning from the school and in her way they have collected the 8 to 10 fallen unripe mangoes. As soon as her daughters came in her house the other coaccused persons entered in her house and abused and assaulted her daughters. It is further alleged that the accused persons have assaulted the informant and her husband. It is further alleged that the petitioner no.1 is the Gram-sevak of the Meharma Block and six months ago he has taken Rs.2500/- from the informant on the promise of allotment of house under Prime Minister Housing Scheme. It is further alleged that the complainant has approached the police but they refused to register the case. Hence this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire complaint case there is no direct allegation so far as these petitioners are concerned. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is the Government employee and the petitioner no.2 is the wife of the petitioner no.1. He submits that no ingredients of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 so far these petitioners are concerned has been made out, however, the learned court has taken cognizance against these petitioners. He submits that only omnibus allegations are there. He further submits that the O.P.No.2 has compromised with the other accused and according to him, which also speaks of mala fide as on the other hand the O.P.No.2 has compromised the matter with other accused persons and so far as these petitioners are concerned, he is taking action against these petitioners. He further submits that while granting the anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No.481 of 2019 this Court has noted the fact that S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has not attracted and that is why anticipatory bail has been granted. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on paragraph no.19 in the case of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011], which is quoted below:

“19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the afore-stated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that:

Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the afore-stated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones