The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of incidents taking place in public view and the caste of the accused being of the informant for taking cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Cr. M.P. No. 1157 of 2013

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rishi Chandan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 01.04.2013 and 17.04.2013, whereby non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. The prayer is also made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Senha P.S. Case No. 19/2013, G.R. No. 106/2013, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.

3. The FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner used filthy language insulting her in the name of the caste as she is an Adivasi Lady Mukhia. It was further alleged that he was pressurizing to take contract work of Nali and Culvert in front of Panchayat Bhawan. It was also alleged that the work of Morram in the road connecting Kalhepat to cremation place of Hindu without any sanction order and when it was prohibited, he used filthy language to her on 02.02.2013.

4. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no ingredient of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and in spite of that the case has been registered. He submits that in view of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the investigation to the allegation can be done only by the person having his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case. He further submits that the notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. He also submits that the ingredient of Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. He also submits that nothing has happened in public view, which is one of the parameter to take cognizance under that section. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

5. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the there is allegation of threatening and for that the case under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

6. Mr. Chandan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the ingredient is there and charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and this Court may not interfere with this petition, at this stage.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that in the complaint there is no allegation that the said incident took place in public view. Further, it is not disclosed that the petitioner is not of the caste of the informant and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others, 2008 (12) SCC 53. However, the Court finds that there is allegation of threatening and in that view of the matter, Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

8. So far as the submission of Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is concerned, it is a disputed question of fact and the learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate how the persons who are asked to investigate the matter, are not competent persons. Moreover, the said notification is not under challenge in this petition. In that view of the matter, the arg