JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. being Patna Harijan Police Station Case No. 28 of 1999, G.R. No. 11 of 1999 which has been instituted by Officer-in-Charge of Harijan Police Station, Patna against him under Sections 401, 465, 468, 470 & 471 of the I.P.C. and 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(v)(vi) of the Prevention of the Atrocity against the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is an eminent public figure and holds a responsible position in a major political party in the State, namely, BJP. He belongs to Chaupal caste. He had been given proper caste certificate by the competent authority and he successfully contested elections of both Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha from different constituencies in the State. He further submits as in case of other castes, people belonging to Chaupal caste also keep different sur-names like Khatway, Tatma, Sharma, Das etc. He submits that after independence in terms of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, Honble President of India notified castes falling in category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. According to the notification, the caste Chaupal also figured as one of the Scheduled castes. 3. The petitioner submits that he is also a registered voter at Patna and he has been granted Caste certificate by the BDO and the S.D.O., Patna Sadar on due verification on 16.1.1995 as also on 25.3.1996 wherein he has been described as belonging to Chaupal caste pertaining to (Scheduled Caste Community). Photocopy of caste certificates have been annexed as Annexure-2 series. Collector, Patna also granted him certificate stating that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste vide Certificate No. 134 dated 2.4.1996. A photocopy of caste certificate, granted by the Collector is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner submits that no challenge was ever made to his caste certificate. He submits that some confusion has been sought to be created on the basis of report of "Mungari Lal Commission", wherein it has been opined that people belonging to Khatway are recognized as Chaupal. In the report, it is further noted that even Members belonging to Scheduled Caste try to observe distance from them because of their low standard. However, he recommended that Khatway should be put in category of Extreme Backward Caste. 5. In the report, it is further noted that even Members belonging to Scheduled Caste try to observe distance from them because of their low standard. However, he recommended that Khatway should be put in category of Extreme Backward Caste. 5. Learned counsel submits that the State Government set up one Research Committee in which Chaupal caste has been placed under category of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner submits that right from the very beginning his claim has been that he is a Chaupal and belongs to Scheduled Caste and he never had surname in the nomenclature of Khatway. 6. The petitioner way back in 1993. moved this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 10463/ 1993 for directing the State to grant him caste certificate belonging to Chaupal caste. This Court vide order dated 8.4.1999 allowed the writ application and directed State Government to strictly follow the Presidential Notification, as referred to in Annexures-1, 2 and 3 and 8 as and when required for issuance of Caste Certificate to the members of Chaupal caste. 7. The petitioner submits that in view of judgment rendered in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 no prosecution could be instituted unless and until it was found by Scrutiny Committee that the caste certificate has been obtained on the basis of misrepresentation or fraud after following guidelines laid down therein, by Apex Court. In sub-paras 3, 4, 14 & 15 of Para 12 of the judgment reads as follows: 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Direbtor, Social Welfare/ Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, trial communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 14. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, trial communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or the Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the concerned educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgment due with request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a post. 8. On this basis learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only after following procedure laid down by the Apex Court, if it is found that a person has wrongly obtained caste certificate, prosecution can be instituted against him. Learned counsel submits that in case of Ajit P.K. Jogi vs. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Others, reported in AIR 2007 Chhattisgarh 90, a complaint was filed before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes regarding tribal status of Mr. Jogi. The Apex Court observed that only Scrutiny Committee as formed by the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri (supra) should go into this issue first and as such, no complaint at the first instance could have been made with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Bombay High Court in case of P.B. Lodhi vs. The Collector and The District Magistrate, and Others, reported in AIR 2001 Bombay 416 held that in view of judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri (supra), no suit or other proceedings would lie before any authority against decision of Scrutiny Committee, which would be only subject to writ jurisdiction. 9. 9. In the instant case, counsel for the State submits that in enquiry it was found that the petitioner has wrongly represented himself of belonging to Chaupal castes. He submits that charge-sheet has also been filed in this case. 10. Heard the counsel for the parties. 11. In C.W.J.C. No. 10463/1993 this Court directed the State Government to grant certificate stating that petitioner belongs to Chaupal caste in view of Presidential Notification. This court finds that the petitioner was entitled to be granted caste certificate belonging to Chaupal caste vide its order dated 8.4.1999. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge has become final, as no LPA was preferred. In this view of the matter, this Court quashes the prosecution of the petitioner so far as Sections 3(1)(IX), 3(2)(V)(VI) of the Prevention of the Atrocity against the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989 is concerned. So far as charge sheet under penal provisions are concerned, this Court observes that if the court takes cognizance, the petitioner may challenge the same before the appropriate court. 12. Till cognizance is not taken, the interim order granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 7.7.1999, passed in this case would continue. This court directs the court in seisin of the case to take appropriate decision on point of cognizance. 13. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.