Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 386 (JHR)

Ajay Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-25

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. Deepak Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.119 of 2006 (G.R. No.432 of 2006), including the order dated 17.11.2006, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The written report was given by the informant-Opp. Party No.2, wherein it was stated that he was engaged in constructing a community hall in the village. On 11.05.2006, the petitioner had met him and had informed that he had come to inspect the construction of community hall. The allegation has been levelled that the amount of Rs.5000/- was demanded from the informant and on non-payment of the said amount, would result in getting the news published in the newspaper. It is also alleged that the informant expressed his inability to fulfill the demand money made by the petitioner, but somehow or other, an amount of Rs.2000/- was collected, was given to the petitioner. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Gumla P.S. Case No.119 of 2006 (G.R. No.432 of 2006) was instituted. 4. After investigation, on finding a case to be true, charge sheet was submitted by the police and consequent thereto, cognizance was also taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, vide order dated 17.11.2006. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated only because of the fact that there was news report published in the daily newspaper, which resulted the informant preferring the first information report and same would suggest malicious prosecution on the part of the informant. It has also been submitted that the cognizance has been taken under Sections 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and in absence of any violation of any specific act under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the entire proceeding deserves to be quashed. Similarly, it has also been submitted that Section 4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out and is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Similarly, it has also been submitted that Section 4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out and is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that since no case is made out against the petitioner, entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 6. At this stage, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 submits that in the written report, specific allegation has been made against the petitioner, which having been found to be true, charge sheet has been duly submitted by the police, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. Learned counsel further submits that so far as newspaper report is concerned, the same is matter of defence of the petitioner, which cannot be looked into in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that since a case, under Sections 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is not made out against the petitioner, it is not at all necessary for the learned cognizance taking court to categorize the sub section under which cognizance is said to have been committed. 7. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be the newspaper report, which according to him, was published, causes initiation of criminal case. The news published in the newspaper is attached to this petition is a matter of defence of the petitioner and the same cannot be considered by this Court under its inherent power. So far as Sections 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is concerned, it is for the court below. Since, offence is clearly made out against the petitioner, as per the first information report, which has been found to be true, in course of investigation, the same cannot be said to be illegal, which would occasion to give opinion specifying sub section of Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and would not be considered to be irregular, which would occasion for interference by this Court. 8. 8. Since prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and thereby, no illegality was committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, while taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, vide order dated 17.11.2016, I am not inclined to entertain this application. 9. Accordingly, it is hereby, dismissed. Application dismissed.