Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 729 (JHR)

Chand Rasid @ Chando Mian v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-30

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 140 of 2011 instituted under sections 147, 148, 337, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. It appears that first information report of Dhanwar P.S.Case No. 140 of 2011 has been instituted on the basis of information given by the Opposite Party No.2, wherein she alleged that informant along with others had gone to the land under dispute for measurement. It is further alleged that when Amin started taking measurement of the land of accused persons (petitioners) came at the place of occurrence and -2-started pelting stones. They abused informant by taking her caste name. It is further stated that at the time of occurrence itself, the police arrived along with Circle Officer, Dhanwar, Mukhiya and Sarpanch of the village and they witness the occurrence. It is further stated that in course of the occurrence, Shanti Devi, Sunita Devi, Girija Devi and Uma Devi received injuries. Accordingly, present case lodged. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that from perusal of first information report, no offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (herein after referred as the Act) made out. He further submitted that a proceeding is pending in between the parties under section 144 Cr.P.C. and only with a view to take revenge from the petitioners, present case has been filed. It is further submitted that Sub-divisional Police Officer, Sadar is investigating the case, who is not authorised to investigate the case as per Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). Accordingly, Mr. Tewari submits that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Dhanwar P.S. case No. 140 of 2011 be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, learned Addl.P.P. submits that from perusal of allegations made in the first information report, it is clear that the petitioners insulted informant and abused her by taking her caste name in presence of other persons. Accordingly, he submits that offenceunder section 3(1)(x) of the Act made out against the -3-petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, learned Addl.P.P. submits that from perusal of allegations made in the first information report, it is clear that the petitioners insulted informant and abused her by taking her caste name in presence of other persons. Accordingly, he submits that offenceunder section 3(1)(x) of the Act made out against the -3-petitioners. He further submitted that from perusal of Annexure-3, it is clear that a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated on the application of informant's party, because the petitioners who are the second party in the aforesaid case had disturbed the first party from plaughing and cultivating the land under dispute. Accordingly, it is submitted that in fact the petitioners were disturbing the possession of informant's party on the land. He further submitted that from perusal of first information report, it is clear that on the date of occurrence, the land in dispute was measured by the Amin in presence of Dhanwar Police, Circle Officer, Dhanwar, Mukhiya and Serpanch of the village and during said measurement, petitioners had assaulted informant's party by pelting stones and also abused them by taking their caste name. Accordingly, it is submitted that it can not be accepted that petitioners lodged a false case in retaliation of the proceeding initiated under section 144 Cr.P.C. Learned Addl.P.P. further submitted that Sub-divisional Police Officer is an officer equivalent to Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, even as per Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, there is no bar upon the Sub-divisional Police Officer from investigating the case. He further submitted that more over the State of Jharkhand had issued a Notification under section 9(1)of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act and empowered all the Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the cases falling under Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the investigation as pointed out by the -4-petitioners. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. From perusal of allegations made in the first information report, it is clear that the informant's party had alleged that petitioners abused them by taking their caste name in presence of so many persons including Amin, Police Personnel, Circle Officer, Mukhiya and Serpanch of the village. Thus, prima facie it appears that petitioners abused and insulted informant's party in public view. Thus, prima facie it appears that petitioners abused and insulted informant's party in public view. In my view, the aforesaid allegations constitutes offence enumerated under section 3(1)(x)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. Thus, I find no merit in the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 7. So far second contention i.e. the present case has been filed in retaliation of a proceeding initiated under section 144 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the aforesaid proceeding was initiated on the application of first party who are Radhika Rabidas, Puran Rabidas, Krishna Das, Sahdeo Rabidas, Darshan Das, Binod Das and Radheshyam Das. It is worth mentioning that Sahdeo Rabidas is the husband of informant, whereas Darshan Das is the husband of Uma Devi, who is one of the injured. Thus, it is clear that the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated on the behest of informant's party, because petitioners were disturbing their possession. In that view of the matter, I find that informant had no grudge to file a false case against the petitioners in -5-retaliation of proceeding initiated under section 144 Cr.P.C. Thus, I find no merit in the second contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 8. Now coming to the third contention, it worth mentioning that according to Rule 7 of the said Rules, no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police can investigate the offence committed under the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is stated by the petitioners at paragraph no. 13 of the application that S.D.P.O. is an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate the present case. 9. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. In the said counter affidavit, at paragraph no.16, it is specifically stated that S.D.P.O. is empowered to investigate into the matter. On query, learned Addl. P.P. seek instruction from the State and, thereafter, submitted that S.D.P.O. is an officer equivalent to Dy. S.P. Under the said circumstance, even as per Rule 7 of the Rules, S.D.P.O. can investigate the case, because he is not an officer below the rank of Dy. S.P. 10. On query, learned Addl. P.P. seek instruction from the State and, thereafter, submitted that S.D.P.O. is an officer equivalent to Dy. S.P. Under the said circumstance, even as per Rule 7 of the Rules, S.D.P.O. can investigate the case, because he is not an officer below the rank of Dy. S.P. 10. Moreover, I find that the State of Jharkhand, in view of the power vested under section 9(1)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide Notification No. 7/SCST/06/2007/5165 has authorised all the Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police to investigate the cases falling under the Atrocities Act in their territorial jurisdiction. Thus, in view of the aforesaid notification in the State of -6-Jharkhand, Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules has no application. In that view of the matter also the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable in law. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application, Accordingly, the same is dismissed.