Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1579 (JHR)

Pankaj Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-22

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kumar learned APP appearing for the State as also Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1630 of 2015 including the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has taken for the offences punishable u/s 323/504 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint case has been instituted by way of malicious prosecution as there was a previous dispute between the mother of the petitioner and the landlord of the complainant which resulted in institution of a case u/s 133 Cr.P.C. for removal of encroachment. Pursuant to the order passed in the said case, the encroachment was removed by the administration and the complaint also reveals the date of incident as 29.06.2015. It has been further submitted that the landlord of the complainant, namely, Anil Singh had set him up to lodge a case under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel has also referred to the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as the statement of his wife and has submitted that there are major discrepancies in both the statements. It has been submitted that the complainant has admitted that there was no previous dispute between them and that he was a tenant of Anil Singh. Learned counsel has further stated that the entire incident even as per complaint petition is not within public view and in such circumstances, therefore the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out. It has been concluded that since the complaint case is merely an outburst against the proceeding under section 133 of the Cr.P.C. initiated against the landlord of the complainant and considering the fact that the ingredients with respect to constitute an offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is absent, the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has contradicted what has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that the institution of the complaint case cannot be said to be a malicious prosecution, as admittedly there was no previous enmity between the complainant and the petitioner. It has been submitted that merely because of a dispute existing between Anil Singh and the mother of the petitioner with respect to removal of encroachment, the same cannot be a ground for saying that he set out the complainant for lodging the present complaint. It has also been submitted that the complaint itself reveals that the incident had taken place in public view and was seen by several of the witnesses and therefore the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has clearly been made out and there being no justifiable reasons to interfere in the criminal proceedings this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. It appears that the complaint case was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner along with other antisocial elements had entered into his house and started to outrage the modesty of his wife and had also abused the complainant in the name of his caste. Allegation has been made out that the accused persons had thrown the complainant and his wife from the house and the entire incident had taken place in public view. After institution of the complaint, the complainant and the witnesses were examined under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to which cognizance was taken for the punishable under offences punishable u/s 323/504 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly submission has been advanced that the complaint case is by way of malicious prosecution and secondly the incident was never have taken place in public view. So far as the contention with respect to malicious prosecution is concerned, the dispute with respect to the encroachment appears to be between the mother of the petitioner and Anil Singh, the landlord of the complainant. So far as the contention with respect to malicious prosecution is concerned, the dispute with respect to the encroachment appears to be between the mother of the petitioner and Anil Singh, the landlord of the complainant. Pursuant to institution of a case under section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and pursuant to an order of removal of encroachment, the same was removed on 29.06.2015. The incident which has been mentioned in the complaint petition is also dated 29.06.2015 when the encroachment was removed. Admittedly no enmity existed between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2. It is premature at this stage to conclude that only because a case under section 133 Cr.P.C. was instituted by the mother of the petitioner against the landlord of the complainant which resulted in the eviction and removeal of the complainant, the present complaint had been instituted by way of malicious prosecution against the petitioner. So far as the applicability/non-applicability of the provisions of Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the complaint itself reveals that the incident had taken place in public view. In such circumstance, therefore the learned court below did not commit any error in taking cognizance under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. Considering what has been discussed above, no error or illegality can be detected in the order taking cognizance dated 19.01.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has taken for the offences punishable u/s 323/504 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This application is accordingly dismissed.