High Court dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of a prayer for quashing proceedings under Section 228 Cr.P.C. involving allegations of caste atrocities. The court upheld the finding that the incident occurred in public view involving insult and naming of caste. Case dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32118 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -102 Year- 2012 Thana -RAHIKA District- MADHUBANI
======================================================
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das(Spl.P.P.)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 05-07-2017
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.06.2014, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Madhubani in Trial No.310 of 2014, arising out of Rahika P.S. Case No.102 of 2012 whereby he rejected the petition filed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. holding therein that also prima facie case under Section 3(i)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there
is no allegation in the First Information Report that the petitioners insulted the informant and his sister in public view rather the alleged occurrence took place inside the house of accused persons.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32118 of 2014 (2) dt.05-07-2017
2 / 2
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is prima facie case against the petitioner also under Section 3(i)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
It appears from the perusal of the First Information Report that alleged offence was not committed inside the house rather out side and in public view, petitioners are alleged to have abused the informant naming his caste, so rightly the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Madhubani has refused the prayer made by petitioners by rejecting the petition filed under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
This quashing petition stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash proceedings for caste atrocities and apologies under Section 228 Cr.P.C. in view of the nature of the alleged occurrence in a public view.
Whether the lower court correctly rejected the petition quashing the proceedings for making a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Sah son of late Laxmi Sah
Uma Shankar Sah son of Late Laxmi Sah
Mintu Sah
Tinku Sah
Golu Sah
Gudan Kumari
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
