Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 320 (JHR)

Munna Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-15

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Inspite of valid service of notice, O.P. No. 2 has not appeared that is why the matter is being heard on merit. 2. Heard Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. (ST)SC) Case No. 268 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1086 of 2009 for the offence registered under sections 447, 341, 323, 307, 289, 505(2) of the I.P.C. and under section 3(v) (x) (xi)/3 (2-v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). By order dated 21.02.2023 I.A. No. 9053 of 2022 filed for amendment was allowed and thus order taking cognizance dated 29.07.2022 is also under challenge. 3. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that on 22.07.2009 the informant along with his wife was ploughing his field where Munna Singh and Ravi Singh armed with pistol, Lalu Singh armed with tangi and Uday Singh armed with lathi came to his field and abused them, asked them to flee away. When the informant and his wife told them that land belong to them and how they leave land, at that time several persons assembled there and the accused persons abused them by saying sala chamar siyar and also threatened them not to come over the land failing which they would kill them. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the informant told them as to why they are making insult in presence of persons, they became angry and assaulted them by feet and also assaulted the oxen by lathi. It has further been alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons also told by showing pistol that they will kill them by all the bullets. It was further alleged that the accused Lalu Singh and Uday Singh had told to kill Chamra sala and there after they also pressed their neck. 4. Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations are false and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that so far as ingredient of under section 3(v) (x) (xi)/3 (2-v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) is concerned, that is not made out. 4. Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations are false and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that so far as ingredient of under section 3(v) (x) (xi)/3 (2-v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) is concerned, that is not made out. He submits that there is no averment in the petition that the petitioners are not belonging to the SC/ST Caste as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others”, (2008) 12 SCC 531 . Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of the their caste. According to the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant accused as not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 5. He further submits that I.P.C. sections are also not made out and in that view of the matter entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. 6. On the other hand Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and there is not illegality in the cognizance order. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. as well as cognizance order and finds that in the contents of F.I.R. there is no averment that the petitioners are not belonging to the SC/ST caste which is one of the requirement to make out the case under SC/ST Act. The case of the petitioner is fully covered with the Gorige Pentaiah (supra) So far as argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that I.P.C. sections are not made out, he has not satisfied the court. Looking into the contents of F.I.R. the Court comes to the conclusion that the ingredient of I.P.C. sections are made out. The learned court has rightly taken cognizance under the sections of I.P.C. 7. In view of above facts, the order taking cognizance dated 29.07.2022 so far under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) is concerned, is set aside. This petition is allowed in part and disposed of. 8. It is made clear that cognizance order under the I.P.C. Sections is kept intact. 9. This petition stands dispose of. Pending, I.A, if any, stands disposed of.