JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the Complaint Case No.294 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Class, cum Special Judge, Godda in connection with Complaint Case No.294 of 2018, S.C./S.T. Case No.05/2019, pending in the same learned court. 2. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the case has been registered on the basis of written complaint lodged by the informant namely Pinki Devi before the Special Judge, Godda alleging therein that the on dated 29.9.2017 at 4 O’clock in the evening at her house the petitioners and other co-accused persons entered in her house and abused her family members with caste remark. It is alleged that on dated 20.04.2018 at 12 O’clock when her daughters were returning from the school and in her way they have collected the 8 to 10 fallen unripe mangoes. As soon as her daughters came in her house the other coaccused persons entered in her house and abused and assaulted her daughters. It is further alleged that the accused persons have assaulted the informant and her husband. It is further alleged that the petitioner no.1 is the Gram-sevak of the Meharma Block and six months ago he has taken Rs.2500/- from the informant on the promise of allotment of house under Prime Minister Housing Scheme. It is further alleged that the complainant has approached the police but they refused to register the case. Hence this case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire complaint case there is no direct allegation so far as these petitioners are concerned. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is the Government employee and the petitioner no.2 is the wife of the petitioner no.1. He submits that no ingredients of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 so far these petitioners are concerned has been made out, however, the learned court has taken cognizance against these petitioners. He submits that only omnibus allegations are there. He further submits that the O.P.No.2 has compromised with the other accused and according to him, which also speaks of mala fide as on the other hand the O.P.No.2 has compromised the matter with other accused persons and so far as these petitioners are concerned, he is taking action against these petitioners. He submits that only omnibus allegations are there. He further submits that the O.P.No.2 has compromised with the other accused and according to him, which also speaks of mala fide as on the other hand the O.P.No.2 has compromised the matter with other accused persons and so far as these petitioners are concerned, he is taking action against these petitioners. He further submits that while granting the anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No.481 of 2019 this Court has noted the fact that S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has not attracted and that is why anticipatory bail has been granted. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on paragraph no.19 in the case of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011], which is quoted below: “19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the afore-stated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the afore-stated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case. Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socio-economic status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed. Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired. Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the accused. Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded. Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement.” 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sah, the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 submits that this Court sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C may not quash the entire proceeding at this stage as the learned court has taken the cognizance after appreciating the facts. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sah, the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 submits that this Court sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C may not quash the entire proceeding at this stage as the learned court has taken the cognizance after appreciating the facts. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. This Court has perused the impugned order including the entire complaint petition and considering the complaint petition it transpires that there is no ingredient of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 so far as these petitioners are concerned, moreover, the O.P.No.2 has compromised the matter with other co-accused and so far as these petitioners are concerned, the O.P.no.2 is taking action which speaks of mala fide action. 7. In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the order taking cognizance dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Class, cum Special Judge, Godda in connection with Complaint Case No.294 of 2018, S.C./S.T. Case No.05/2019, pending in the same learned court is set aside so far as these petitioners are concerned. 8. The matter is remitted back to the learned concerned court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. Cr.M.P. No.300 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 10. Interim order stands vacated.