The High Court of Jharkhand quashed proceedings against the petitioner filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and stated that the special law of SC/ST Act has been enacted to protect the interest of the marginalized section of the Society and it is not intended to be used as an instrument of persecution to settle scores and the present case was that of malicious prosecution and would lead to an abuse of process of court if permitted to continue.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance in a case registered under Section 323, 451, 506, 120B of IPC and Sections 3(i)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST Act).
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the prest case was a malicious prosecution to pressure the petitioners who had a land dispute with the complainant and further contended that the complainant was a habitual litigant and he had earlier filed a case wherein the judge had refused to take cognizance as the complainant failed to file any certificate issued by the state of Jharkhand that they belonged to the Scheduled Tribe in Jharkhand and the present case, cognizance has been taken under the special Act (SC/ST) without evidence to suggest that the complainant was the member of scheduled tribe based on two interested witnesses regarding an incidence which took place in the ‘premises’ and not in public view.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that the main plea of the petitioner was that the stringent provisions of SC/ST had been misused against the petitioners by the complainant, to settle a score over an ongoing civil dispute for passage and further observed the pleadings and arguments advanced and stated that the complainant had filed a case earlier too which was rejected and another case where cognizance was taken under the SC/ST Act.
The court stated that the statements of the complainant were contrary to that of his wife who was examined during the inquiry and both of them had mentioned contradictory caste expressions while making allegations against the petitioner.
The court stated that the special law of the SC/ST Act has been enacted to protect the interest of the marginalized section of Society and it is not intended to be used as an instrument of persecution to settle scores in the present case, two cases earlier filed one under the Explosive Substance Act and another under the SC/ST Act, have falsified the stand of the Complainant, which lends credence to the argument of the petitioners that he is a habitual litigant and there is no clarity as to the place of occurrence which is the house premise, if it was in public view or not and there was a contradiction in the statement regarding the use of the expression of insinuation against the Complainant by the petitioners and the dispute in questions was because of a land dispute and not because of the caste of the complainant.
The court concluded that that the present case was that of malicious prosecution and would lead to an abuse of process of court if permitted to continue.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case Title: Nayan Prakash Singh @ Narayan Prakash Singh and ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. M. P. No. 2596 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Nehala Sharmin and Mr. Gautam Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
