Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1057 (JHR)

Jai Gopal Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-08

H.C.MISHRA

body2015
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in G.R. No. 50 of 2002, arising out of Thethaitangar P.S. Case No. 2 of 2002, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(ix)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as also under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The record shows that the police case was instituted on the basis of complaint case filed by the complainant-informant, who was posted as Block Development Officer (BDO), Thethaitangar. The petitioner was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Simdega and it is alleged by the complainant-informant that on 22.1.2002, the petitioner came to the office of the complainant and abused him in the name of his caste, stating that he had made complain against the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. It appears that the said complaint petition was sent for institution of police case, on the basis of which, police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. It appears that upon investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in G.R. No. 50 of 2002. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. From the complaint petition, it would be appear that the complainant's name is Ajay Kumar, which does not disclose the caste of the complainant and in the entire complainant petition, it is not stated that the complainant belongs to either SC or ST category. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that no offence can be said to be made against the petitioner for the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1561 of 2013, Md. Haider Ali Vs. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that no offence can be said to be made against the petitioner for the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1561 of 2013, Md. Haider Ali Vs. State of Jharkhand, decided on 15th July 2014, wherein, there was no averment in the complaint petition that the complainant belonged to either the scheduled tribe or the scheduled caste category, it was held that no offence was not made out under the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsels for the opposite parties have opposed the prayer submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as on the basis of allegation made in the complaint petition, the offence is made against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even though in the complaint petition, the caste of the complainant is not mentioned, but the fact remains that the petitioner being the superior officer of the complainant was knowing the caste of the complainant and accordingly, the offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsels have accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that from the complaint petition, the caste of the complainant is not clear. It is also not stated in the compliant petition that the complainant belongs to either of the SC or ST categories. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out against the petitioner. 7. I also find from the complaint petition that the case relates to an unfortunate dispute between two officers of the State Government, one being the BDO and other being the DDC, posted in the same district. 7. I also find from the complaint petition that the case relates to an unfortunate dispute between two officers of the State Government, one being the BDO and other being the DDC, posted in the same district. There may be allegations against each other in discharge of their official functions, due to which, the present complaint appears to have been filed making personal allegations against the petitioner, on the basis of which, the FIR was instituted, but it is not in the public interest that two officers of the State Government are fighting in this manner. The record also reveals that the case is very old one relating to the year 2002 itself. In the facts of this case, to end of this unfortunate dispute, I am inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in Thethaitangar P.S. Case No. 2 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 50 of 2002, including the order dated 23.10.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, are hereby, set aside. 9. This criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly, allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the I.A. No.927 of 2003 and I.A. No.3431 of 2015. Accordingly, both the interlocutory applications are also dismissed as not pressed.