Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 861 (JHR)

Arjun Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-12

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 entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2022 by which the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (I) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of SC/ST (Protest) Case No.71 of 2019 filed against Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.417 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1289 of 2016. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 17.04.2016 at about 7:15 am the petitioners were blocking the PCC Road by constructing a wall over the same by bricks. When the informant/victim- Raj Mahendra Paswan who is a member of Scheduled Caste protested to the same, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention caused hurt and abused him by taking his caste name on the road which is a public place. 4. The informant/victim submitted a written report in Hazaribagh Sadar Police Station and basing upon the same Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.417 of 2016 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. Police after investigation of the case did not find sufficient evidence in the matter and submitted Final Form mentioning therein that there is lack of evidence against the petitioners. After submission of the Final Form by the police, the informant/victim submitted Protest-cum-Complaint Petition and the same was registered as SC/ST (Protest) Case No.71 of 2019 and the learned Special Judge recorded the statement on solemn affirmation of the victim as also the two inquiry witnesses namely Gaurav Kumar and Rahul Bharti. All of them supported the case of the prosecution and after that vide order dated 24.03.2022, the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence as already indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Protest-cum-Complaint, date and time of occurrence has been mentioned as 06.05.2016 at about 5:30 pm but the witnesses have stated about the occurrence having taken place on 17.04.2016 at about 7:15 am. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Protest-cum-Complaint, date and time of occurrence has been mentioned as 06.05.2016 at about 5:30 pm but the witnesses have stated about the occurrence having taken place on 17.04.2016 at about 7:15 am. It is next submitted that in the year 2009, mother of the witness Rahul Bharti lodged one case under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and the wife of the petitioner No.1 namely Veena Devi filed a case for appointment of police personnel. It is further submitted that the order taking cognizance is bad in law. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is regarding the corridor in their residential area and for capture of the corridor and for that dispute, this case has been instituted against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Tulsi Nayak & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2022 (3) JBCJ 495 [HC] wherein in the facts of that case as from the contents of the complaint, the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not established and it has not been alleged that the petitioners were not the members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, the co-ordinate Bench quashed the cognizance order. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2022 arising out of SC/ST (Protest) Case No.71 of 2019 filed against Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.417 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1289 of 2016, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned AAG-III and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2022 arising out of SC/ST (Protest) Case No.71 of 2019 filed against Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.417 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1289 of 2016. 6. Learned AAG-III and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2022 arising out of SC/ST (Protest) Case No.71 of 2019 filed against Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.417 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1289 of 2016. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that from the statement of inquiry witnesses and the statement on solemn affirmation of the informant-complainant, the offence punishable under the old Section 3 (I) (x) which corresponds to Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out as also the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of having in furtherance of common intention; intentionally intimidating with intent to humiliate the victim- Raj Mahendra Paswan- who is a member of Scheduled Caste and also by taking the name of his caste in public view and further there is specific allegation of causing simple hurt by slapping and manhandling. It is a settled principle of law that High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section of the 482 of the Cr.P.C. shall not consider the defence of the accused persons as that is the job of the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 . It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not stifle a legitimate prosecution 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 . 8. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioners of in furtherance of common intention, manhandling and thereby causing hurt to the victim and also there is direct allegation of abusing the victim- Raj Mahendra Paswan who is a member of Scheduled Caste by taking his caste name Harijan/Dusadh and also intentionally insulting and intimidating him with an intent to humiliate him at a place within public view, being on the road. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2022 arising out of SC/ST (Protest) Case No.71 of 2019 filed against Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.417 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1289 of 2016, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.