- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party No.2. The order dated 26.03.2011, passed by the then learned C.J.M., Garhwa, in Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.99 of 2009 (G.R. No.647 of 2009) under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, has been taken against the petitioners, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties have compromised the case. Before proceeding further in the matter, the case of the complainant as has been made out in the complaint needs to be taken notice of. It is the case of the complainant-opposite party No.2 that when she along with her two daughters-in-law came to a place of Village- Bankheta, P.O.-Arsali, P.S.-Bhawnathpur, to pick up mahua, the accused persons, 4 in number came over there and started abusing them with a view to humiliate them. They also said them that they will not allow them to pick up mahua. The accused persons also assaulted them and snatched the silver chain from the neck of the complainant.
(2.) ON such allegation, the cognizance of the offence under Sections 143 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, has been taken against the petitioners. From perusal of the complaint and upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I do find that no case is made out under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, as the petitioners have never been alleged to have insulted or intimidated the complainant and her two daughters-in-law, within the "public view". Having noticed the provision as contained in Section 3(1) (X) of the S.C. and S.T. Prevention of Atrocity Act, it can be said that there has been purpose to introduce the word "public view" as only when the members of the S.C. and S.T. is abused within the "public view", he /she can be said to have been humiliated and as such, whenever a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is humiliated or intimidated, in public view, the offence gets attracted under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Here in the instant case, there has been absolutely no allegation nor there is anything to indicate or to suggest that the complainant or her daughters-in-law were abused within the "public view" or within "public hearing" and as such, the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act never gets attracted. So far offence under Section 143 of the I.P.C. is concerned, that also does not get attracted as only 4 persons have been alleged to have committed offence. So far offence under Section 504 of the I.P.C, is concerned, that is compoundable and the parties have filed a compromise petition not only before the court below but also before this Court, wherein, it has been stated that the parties got their disputes resolved. Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served, allowing the petitioners to face rigour of trial. Accordingly, the order dated 26.03.2011, passed in Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.99 of 2009 (G.R. No.647 of 2009), is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.;