The judgment established the importance of meeting the key parameters for registering a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and highlighted the interpretation of 'place within public view' and the caste affiliation requirement.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant Roy, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar whereby he has been pleased to take congnizance for the offence under section 354 of the IPC and under sections 3(x), 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner in connection with Karon P.S.Case No.4 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.21 of 2012 including the entire criminal proceeding, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar.

3. The First Information Report alleging was registered alleging therein that on the basis of the fardbayan of the informant namely Chameli Murmu dated 15.1.2012 at 15.30 hours before the Officer Incharge of the concerned police station stating therein that informant is resident of village Kamal Kardih, Tola Manipur, Karon, District Deoghar and further she is a member of Ranidih Panchayat Samiti. It is alleged that on 19.12.2012 the informant being the member of the Panchayat Samiti of Ranidih panchayati had gone to the office of the petitioner posted as BDO, Karon Block, to get some information relating to the schemes, where she was told by the petitioner to come to his residence and further she received a call on her Mobile from the petitioner and asked her to come to his residence situated at Block premises. Upon that information, informant went to the official residence of the petitioner where she sat on the chair in the courtyard of the quarter and the driver of the petitioner who was present there left the place. It is further alleged that thereafter the informant started discussing about the schemes of Manrega, suddenly the petitioner got up from his place and put his hands on her shoulders and kissed her and thereafter said about making physical relationship with her. On hearing the same she immediately came out from the quarter and did not disclose anything to anyone there and came to her house where she said about the fact to her Devar as the husband of the informant was not present in the house. It is further alleged that after 1-2 weeks of the alleged occurrence she went to the concerned Block and stated about the incident to the husband of the Pramukh of Karon Panchayat. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the present first information report has been lodged as against the accused persons including this petitioner.

4. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing along with Mr. Nishant Roy, the learned vice counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that looking into the entire contents of the FIR, there is no allegation that occurrence has taken place in public view. He further submits that there is no averment that the petitioner is not belonging to concerned caste. On that ground, he submits that in view of two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand’, (2020) 10 SCC 710 so far the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, it is not attracted.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that the case is made out and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He submits that the ingredients are there and that is why the learned court has taken cognizance.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court looking into the materials on record has taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and the contents in the FIR