JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. By order dated 11.2.2013, the O.P.no.2 was called upon and the requisites were filed and pursuant thereto notices were issued, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of the O.P.No.2. From the records it is not clear that whether the notices pursuant to the said order has been served upon the O.P.No.2 or not. However, while deciding the amendment petition by way of I.A. No.3096 of 2022 by which order taking cognizance was challenged and was allowed and amended the O.P.no.2 again directed to be served and accordingly the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the requisites and Office note suggest that the O.P.no.2 has personally received the notice and the said receiving is kept at Flag-A of the record. Today, when the matter was taken up nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.no.2 and that is how, this petition has been heard on merit. 3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mandu(Kujju) P.S. Case No.216 of 2012 dated 16.08.2012 registered for the offence under section 3(x)/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 including the order taking cognizance dated 24.2.2020, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ramgarh. 4. The FIR was registered alleging therein that as per the allegation made by one Binay Rabidas, posted as a Clerk in the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Ranchi Road, Kuju is that on 11.8.2012 both the petitioners came to the office at 12.30 p.m and they reached the office by some delay and they always use to come to the office with delay and used to mark attendance forcefully. It has been alleged that the petitioners used derogatory words against the employees, posted in the said Hospital by abusing them and in that context, they have also used the derogatory words against the informant namely Binay Rabidas and thus as per the said Act they have committed an offence and hence the instant FIR has been registered. 5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are doctors and at the relevant time they were posted in the E.S.I. Hospital at Ramgarh. 5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are doctors and at the relevant time they were posted in the E.S.I. Hospital at Ramgarh. He submits that the informant was working there in that hospital and due to certain differences the case has been filed falsely. He submits that cognizance has been taken by the learned court under section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He draws the attention of the Court to the said section and submits that the occurrence has not taken place in public view which is one of the essential ingredient for taking cognizance under that section. He further submits that there is no averment in the FIR that the petitioners were not belonging to SC/ST and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 . Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of the their caste. According to the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant accused as not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 6. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the FIR was registered and pursuant thereto the learned court has taken cognizance considering the final report. He submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the FIR was registered and pursuant thereto the learned court has taken cognizance considering the final report. He submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the FIR as well as the order taking cognizance. Looking into the contents of the FIR it is crystal clear that occurrence has not occurred in public view. As per section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, it reads as under : “3.Punishment for offences of atrocities-(1) Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe,- (i)- (ix) * * * (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in anyplace within public view;” 8. Looking to the said section it appears that even at all the allegations as taken in the complaint is true, offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out as the occurrence has not occurred in public view which is one of the ingredient to make out the case under that section. Further in the contents of the FIR it is not stated that the petitioners are not belonging to SC/ST category and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others(supra). Further looking to the order taking cognizance it is found that the word ‘cognizance’ has been filled in the blank space which suggest that there is non-application of judicial mind in order taking cognizance. It is well settled that criminal motion is not required to be put into action only by way of bringing on evidence in support of the case as has been held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate”, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 . 9. It is well settled that criminal motion is not required to be put into action only by way of bringing on evidence in support of the case as has been held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate”, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 . 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and the analysis, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mandu(Kujju) P.S. Case No.216 of 2012 dated 16.08.2012 registered for the offence under section 3(x)/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 including the order taking cognizance dated 24.2.2020, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is quashed. 10. Cr.M.P. No.2189 of 2012 stands allowed and disposed of. 11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.