JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant Roy, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar whereby he has been pleased to take congnizance for the offence under section 354 of the IPC and under sections 3(x), 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner in connection with Karon P.S.Case No.4 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.21 of 2012 including the entire criminal proceeding, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar. 3. The First Information Report alleging was registered alleging therein that on the basis of the fardbayan of the informant namely Chameli Murmu dated 15.1.2012 at 15.30 hours before the Officer Incharge of the concerned police station stating therein that informant is resident of village Kamal Kardih, Tola Manipur, Karon, District Deoghar and further she is a member of Ranidih Panchayat Samiti. It is alleged that on 19.12.2012 the informant being the member of the Panchayat Samiti of Ranidih panchayati had gone to the office of the petitioner posted as BDO, Karon Block, to get some information relating to the schemes, where she was told by the petitioner to come to his residence and further she received a call on her Mobile from the petitioner and asked her to come to his residence situated at Block premises. Upon that information, informant went to the official residence of the petitioner where she sat on the chair in the courtyard of the quarter and the driver of the petitioner who was present there left the place. It is further alleged that thereafter the informant started discussing about the schemes of Manrega, suddenly the petitioner got up from his place and put his hands on her shoulders and kissed her and thereafter said about making physical relationship with her. It is further alleged that thereafter the informant started discussing about the schemes of Manrega, suddenly the petitioner got up from his place and put his hands on her shoulders and kissed her and thereafter said about making physical relationship with her. On hearing the same she immediately came out from the quarter and did not disclose anything to anyone there and came to her house where she said about the fact to her Devar as the husband of the informant was not present in the house. It is further alleged that after 1-2 weeks of the alleged occurrence she went to the concerned Block and stated about the incident to the husband of the Pramukh of Karon Panchayat. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the present first information report has been lodged as against the accused persons including this petitioner. 4. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing along with Mr. Nishant Roy, the learned vice counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that looking into the entire contents of the FIR, there is no allegation that occurrence has taken place in public view. He further submits that there is no averment that the petitioner is not belonging to concerned caste. On that ground, he submits that in view of two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand’, (2020) 10 SCC 710 so far the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, it is not attracted. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that the case is made out and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He submits that the ingredients are there and that is why the learned court has taken cognizance. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court looking into the materials on record has taken cognizance and 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 and the contents in the FIR. 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 and the contents in the FIR. It is not mentioned that the incident has taken place in public view which is one of the ingredients for taking cognizance under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly, section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner is not belonging to SC/ST caste which is one of the parameters to register the case under the said Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand’, (2020) 10 SCC 710 Paragraph no.14 and 15 of the said judgment is quoted below: “14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435 , at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below: “Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “15. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.” 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and the analysis and considering that the alleged occurrence has not taken place in public view and there is no averment that the petitioner is not belonging to SC/ST caste. A reference may be made to 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. 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.” 9. The case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court so far as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned. 10. Accordingly, order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar in connection with Karon P.S.Case No.4 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.21 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar so far as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is concerned is set aside. 11. It is made clear that the order taking cognizance under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is kept intact and the learned trial court will proceed in accordance with law. 12. Cr.M.P. No.596 of 2013 is allowed in part and disposed of. 13. Pending petition, if any, stands disposed of.