Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1354 (JHR)

Deo Prakash v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-21

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.09.2022 along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.24 of 2022 registered under Section 323, 354 (B), 379 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 (1) (f), 3 (1) (d) (f) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST), Chatra. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 11.07.2022 when the complainant was cleaning the verandah in the courtyard of her house, the petitioner abused her with filthy language, intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant and her husband to humiliate them for being members of scheduled castes; in a place within the public view and abused the complainant and her husband by their caste name in a place within the public view and used criminal force to disrobe the complainant, tore her blouse, made her half-naked and thus outraged her modesty. The complainant filed complaint in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Chatra which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. of this case has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Forest Guard and he has made a complaint against the husband of the complainant as well as he is a witness in the said complaint case and this F.I.R. is a counter-blast to the said complaint case. It is next submitted that another complaint has also been instituted on the basis of the information given by the petitioner on 14.07.2022 as well against the husband of the complainant; for the husband of the complainant having razed the trees over the forest land illegally. It is next submitted that though the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but still the F.I.R. has been registered for the said offence. It is next submitted that though the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but still the F.I.R. has been registered for the said offence. It is next submitted that the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (f), 3 (1) (d) (f) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out on the basis of the allegations and the complaint is a frivolous and vexatious one. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Venkateswaran & Others vs. P. Bakthavatchalam reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 14 and submits that therein in the facts of that case it appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the criminal prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court and also the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the real dispute between the parties was a private dispute going on between the parties with respect to the illegal construction and there was no allegation that the complainant of that case obstructed and/ or interfered with enjoyment of his right on his property deliberately and willfully knowing that the complainant belongs to SC/ST and in that case a civil dispute was converted into a criminal dispute. In the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed and set aside the criminal proceeding concerned. It is then submitted that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the case of B. Venkateswaran & Others vs. P. Bakthavatchalam (supra), hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. dated 18.09.2022 along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.24 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST), Chatra be quashed and set aside. 5. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.09.2022 along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.24 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST), Chatra and submit that there is no doubt that the allegations made in the F.I.R. constitute the offence punishable under Section 354 (B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 (1) (f), 3 (1) (d) (f) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner. It is next submitted that merely because on the statement of the petitioner, a case was instituted by the Forest Department against the husband of the complainant and that itself is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegations made in the F.I.R., if treated to be true in its entirety, is sufficient to make out the offence punishable under Sections 354 (B) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (f), 3 (1) (d) (f) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The facts of this case are different from the facts of the case of B. Venkateswaran & Others vs. P. Bakthavatchalam (supra) as unlike that case there is specific allegation against the petitioner, in this case, of having committed the offences as already indicated above and no any civil dispute is involved in this case between the parties. Merely because on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, a complaint was instituted by the Forest Department against the husband of the complaint, that by itself is not a sufficient ground to come to a conclusion that the F.I.R. has been lodged for wrecking vengeance. Investigation of the case is yet to take place. Merely because on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, a complaint was instituted by the Forest Department against the husband of the complaint, that by itself is not a sufficient ground to come to a conclusion that the F.I.R. has been lodged for wrecking vengeance. Investigation of the case is yet to take place. It is a settled principle of law that a legitimate prosecution ought not be quashed by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the High Court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the F.I.R. dated 18.09.2022 along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.24 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST), Chatra, as prayed for by the petitioner be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the prayer to quash and set aside the F.I.R. dated 18.09.2022 along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.24 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST), Chatra is rejected and consequently this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, also stands rejected. 9. In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.2022 stands vacated. 10. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.