Judgment 1. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as the sole accused in Complaint Case No. 1493 of 2005 which on transmission to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered as Vaishali (Town) P.S. Case No. 317 of 2005, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 3.5.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 406/420 I.P.C. and 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Pre vent ion of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant, Arun Kumar Paswan, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, belonging to the community of Scheduled Castes and a neighbour of the accused persons approached the accused persons and negotiated with them to purchase the land bearing khata no. 1010, khesara no. 3098 for a consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/- of which the informant paid Rs. 1 lac as advance to the accused persons and accordingly an agreement for sale was prepared granting six months time to the informant to pay the rest of the amount whereafter the kewala would be executed. It is further alleged that when the accused did not execute the sale deed and also did not accept the balance amount, a legal notice was sent by the informant which was responded to by the accused sending two cheques worth Rs. 15,000/- and 20,000/- with a request to the informant to withdraw the said amount and an assurance that the rest amount would be paid shortly and in pursuance thereof when the informant went to withdraw the amount it was found that there was no funds in the said account. Thereafter, it is said that the informant requested the accused persons to return the amount if he was not ready to execute the sale deed but the accused evaded the payment and even abusing the informant by his caste and also threatened him. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no offence either under the Penal Code or the SC/ST Act can be said to have been made out against the petitioner from a perusal of the complaint petition which forms the basis of the F.I.R. as also the depositions of his witnesses. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no offence either under the Penal Code or the SC/ST Act can be said to have been made out against the petitioner from a perusal of the complaint petition which forms the basis of the F.I.R. as also the depositions of his witnesses. It was submitted that on the facts of the case, it is a breach of agreement for which a civil suit would be maintainable and criminal prosecution was unwarranted. In this connection, it was submitted that at best a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be made out for the return of the cheques due to insufficient funds in the account but no case thereunder was preferred. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to point out that Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act refers to intentionally insulting or intimidating with an intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view but in the instant case, the occurrence took place within the house of the accused which could not be said to be a public place and, therefore, taking of cognizance under Section 3(x) of the SC/ ST Act is apparently illegal. It was also submitted that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. have also not been made out since there was no case of cheating or criminal breach of trust which could be attributed to the petitioner and even if the allegations are believed regarding the breach of agreement then a suit for specific performance of contract would be the remedy. 5. Although O.P. No. 2 was duly served with notice and had put in an appearance by filing vakalatnama yet at the time of hearing neither OP. No. 2 nor his accredited counsel was present and as such the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner remains unrebutted. 6. Even otherwise, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners carry force and I am in agreement with the submissions advanced. 7. To my mind, from perusal of the recital in the complaint petition it cannot be said with certainty that either of the offences under the Penal Code or the SC/ ST Act have been made out. 8. 7. To my mind, from perusal of the recital in the complaint petition it cannot be said with certainty that either of the offences under the Penal Code or the SC/ ST Act have been made out. 8. Having given my anxious thoughts to the materials on record, I am of the view that the cognizance taken of the offences under the Penal Code as also under the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained in law more so when the ingredients of these offences have not been made out by the complainant/informant. 9. Regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the application succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed.