ORDER Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Invoking the jurisdiction under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.17 passed in S.C./S.T. Case No. 02/2017 by Additional Sessions Judge 1st Bokaroin connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 102 of 2016 ( G.R. No. 1630 of 2016), registered under Section 448, 342, 323, 385, 386, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder the court below rejected the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., 1973 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that perusal of the record reveals that no offence punishable under Sections 3(1) (r) or 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. It is further submitted that the learned court below without taking into account the same, has rejected the prayer for discharge without application of judicial mind. Hence, it is submitted that the order passed by learned court below be set aside and the petition under Section 227 Cr. P.C., 1973be allowed. 3. Learned Addl. PP assisted by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, drew attention of the court to running page no. 28 of the brief, which is first page of the impugned order dated 13.06.17 of the said S.C./S.T. Case No. 02/2017, wherein the court below has observed that in the petition under Section 227 Cr. PC., it has not been mentioned as to on whose behalf, the said application for discharge was filed. It was further submitted on their behalf that there is specific allegation in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses before the investigating officer as referred to by the court below in the impugned order itself, that the accused persons of the case the appellants herein, intentionally insulted the informant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste and the place of occurrence was within public view. It was also submitted by them that there is material on record that the alleged offences were committed against the person of the informant knowing that the informant is a member of the Scheduled Caste, therefore, learned court below has rightly rejected the application under 227 Cr. PC.,hence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 4. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51 , at page 55 held as under: - 10. "The High Court did not at all apply the relevant test, namely, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in the affirmative an order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face the trial ." The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 , it held as under: (SCC pp. 41-42, para 4) "4 Reading [Ss. 227 and 228] together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial.But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. ... If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial ." (Emphasis Supplied) 5. After going through the impugned order, I find that as already discussed above and also referred to in the impugned order, there is specific allegation against the accused persons of committing offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r) or 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also besides the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, in view of the settled principle of law as discussed above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below. Accordingly, this appeal without any merit is dismissed.