IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT P
Cr.Misc. No.3185 of 2011
1. SURENDRA RAI son of Late Biney Rai.
2. Kailash Rai.
3. Chhotu Rai. both sons of Surendra Rai.
4. Binod Rai, son of Gonu Rai.
All resident of village-Laxmipur North, P.S. Khajauli, District -Madhuibani.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Binde Paswan @ Bindeshwar Paswan, son of Late
Babuji Paswan, resident of village-Laxmipur, P.S.-
Kaluahi, District-Madhubani.
-----------
2 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Without issuing notice, petition is being disposed of
considering the very finding recorded by the learned Special Judge, SC /
ST Act, Madhubani, in C.R. No. 687 of 2005/ T.R. No. 255 of 2010.
The learned Judge was recording in the 5th paragraph of his
order dated 1.12.2010 as follows:
“On examining the evidence adduced during the course
of inquiry, I find that it is true that the complainant has not
stated about insulting him by the accused Surendra Rai by
calling and abusing him by his caste name, but the inquiry
witnesses have stated so in their evidence.”
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was submitting
that this point itself was sufficient for not framing a charge under Section
3 (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). However, the
learned trial Judge without further indicating the reasons in the impugned
order, directed for the framing of charge under that Section of the said
Act also.
2
The Court desires that the learned Judge should rehear the
matter and pass a fresh order and as such the order dated 1.12.2010 is set
aside by quashing it.
For the guidance of the learned Judge, the Court wants to point
out that an offence under Section 3(X) of the said Act could be said to be
made out when ingredients of that particular offence are satisfactorily
indicated from the materials/evidence. The first thing is that there
should be an intent of humiliating a member either of the Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that some acts be done at a public place so
as to humiliating such a member of the particular Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled tribe. Merely calling someone by his Caste name may not be
an offence unless the Act is complained of with intent to humiliate and is
allegedly committed at a public place. The learned trial Judge must also
know that the jurisdiction to try any offence which could be triable by
the Court of Sessions only arises when facts constitute an offence
exclusively triable by that particular Court, as may appear flowing from
the provisions of Section 228 (1) (a) of the Cr. P.C. If no offence
exclusively triable by the court of Session Court which is the special
Court, is made out, the judge may not have the power to try that offence.
It is expected that the learned Judge shall apply his mind to the facts of
the case and pass a fresh order.
With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.
Prakash ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)