JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Cr. M.P. No. 1157 of 2013 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rishi Chandan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 01.04.2013 and 17.04.2013, whereby non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. The prayer is also made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Senha P.S. Case No. 19/2013, G.R. No. 106/2013, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 3. The FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner used filthy language insulting her in the name of the caste as she is an Adivasi Lady Mukhia. It was further alleged that he was pressurizing to take contract work of Nali and Culvert in front of Panchayat Bhawan. It was also alleged that the work of Morram in the road connecting Kalhepat to cremation place of Hindu without any sanction order and when it was prohibited, he used filthy language to her on 02.02.2013. 4. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no ingredient of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and in spite of that the case has been registered. He submits that in view of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the investigation to the allegation can be done only by the person having his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case. He further submits that the notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. He also submits that the ingredient of Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. He also submits that nothing has happened in public view, which is one of the parameter to take cognizance under that section. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law. 5. Mr. He also submits that nothing has happened in public view, which is one of the parameter to take cognizance under that section. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law. 5. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the there is allegation of threatening and for that the case under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 6. Mr. Chandan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the ingredient is there and charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and this Court may not interfere with this petition, at this stage. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that in the complaint there is no allegation that the said incident took place in public view. Further, it is not disclosed that the petitioner is not of the caste of the informant and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others, 2008 (12) SCC 53. However, the Court finds that there is allegation of threatening and in that view of the matter, Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 8. So far as the submission of Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is concerned, it is a disputed question of fact and the learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate how the persons who are asked to investigate the matter, are not competent persons. Moreover, the said notification is not under challenge in this petition. In that view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted. 9. In view of the above facts, Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out and that part of the FIR is set aside. In that view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted. 9. In view of the above facts, Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out and that part of the FIR is set aside. So far as Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Court has not interfered as there is allegation of threatening and charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and for that the case is kept intact. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this petition (Cr. M.P. No. 1157 of 2013) is allowed in part and disposed of. 11. Pending I.A. if any, are disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated. Cr. M.P. No. 354 of 2014 13. Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 14. Although appearance has been made on behalf of opposite party no. 2, however on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and that is why in absence of opposite party no. 2, this matter is being heard on merit. 15. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 21.11.2013 passed in Kotwali (S) P.S. Case No. 669 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4032 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 16. The FIR was registered on the basis of written report of opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner and others had entered into her house and had assaulted her due to which she had become unconscious for some time. They had also abused her and had used ugly words relating to her caste. On 25.07.2013 at about 02:00 P.M., the petitioner came to her house and started abusing her and he also threatened with dire consequences if she did not withdraw the case. The informant's two daughters came out of the house and recorded the abuses hurled by the petitioner in their mobile phone. 17. Mr. On 25.07.2013 at about 02:00 P.M., the petitioner came to her house and started abusing her and he also threatened with dire consequences if she did not withdraw the case. The informant's two daughters came out of the house and recorded the abuses hurled by the petitioner in their mobile phone. 17. Mr. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the investigation to the allegation can be done only by the person having his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case. He submits that the notification brought on record is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. He further submits that the ingredient of Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out, however the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He also submits that nothing has happened in public view, which is one of the parameter to take cognizance under that section. He draws attention of the Court to the final form, submitted by the police and submits that the police has recorded that the caste's name was not taken. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 18. On the other hand, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State has come forward with the notification whereby all the Sub-Inspectors have been delegated power to investigate the case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. She submits that there are allegations of threatening and that is why, Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. 19. In view of aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order taking cognizance and finds that in the entire complaint, it is not disclosed that the accident took place in public view, which is one of the ingredient to take cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court further finds that in the said complaint, it has also not been disclosed that the petitioner was not belonging to the case of the informant, which is one of the ingredient for taking cognizance under the said Act and in this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others, 2008 (12) SCC 53. However, the Court finds that there are allegations of threatening and in that view of the matter, Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. 20. So far as the submission of Mr. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is concerned, it is a disputed question of fact and the learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate how the persons who are asked to investigate the matter, are not competent persons. Moreover, the said notification is not under challenge in this petition. In that view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted. 21. In view of the above facts, the order taking cognizance dated 21.11.2013 passed in Kotwali (S) P.S. Case No. 669 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4032 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi with regard to Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside. The Court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance dated 21.11.2013 so far as cognizance under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned and for that the case is kept intact. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, this petition (Cr. M.P. No. 354 of 2014) is allowed in part and disposed of. 23. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.