The High Court of Jharkhand quashed proceedings against the leader of BJP, accused under the SC/ST Act and held that the ingredients of the act were missing in the present case and that the SC/ST Act is meant for the protection of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and it is not meant for setting the score by way of filing the false case.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed for the quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of a case lodged under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 307 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after it was alleged that the petitioner, spokesperson of BJP forcibly took away the car keys from his driver and physically assaulted him after locking the vehicle which caused him injuries.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the trial court without applying the judicial mind sent the matter under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the present FIR was registered with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner. It was further argued that ingredient of sections 3 and 4 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out as nothing has occurred in public view and it has not been disclosed in the complaint petition that the petitioner is not belonging the caste of the complainant which is one of the ingredients of making offence under the SC/ST Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the investigation was going on the witnesses supported the case and the court at this stage may not interfere as only the FIR was under challenge whereas the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 contended that occurrence has occurred in a car and in that view of the matter public view is made out and the occurrence is continuing one and in view of that after the investigation, everything will come and further relied on the judgment in Satvinder Kaur vs State to submit that the FIR may not be quashed at this stage.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that only the FIR was under challenge in the present case and there are parameters for quashing the F.I.R. which is well settled if the case is filed as an abuse of process of law the Court can interfere however, the circumspection is required to be maintained by the court in quashing the proceeding arising out of F.I.R.
The court stated that the complaint petition itself disclosed that the petitioner filed a petition before the police station at Chandwa, despite that the present case has been filed at Latehar and thus, it prima facie appears that cause of action if any is there that of the district of Ranchi and it appeared that way of forum shopping the case has been filed at Latehar and further referred to the judgment in Vijay Kumar Ghai vs State of West Bengal wherein it was held that what has to be seen is whether there is any functional similarity in the proceedings between one court and another or whether there is some sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant and it is this functional test that will determine whether a litigant is indulging in forum shopping or not.
Further, the court after looking into further averments in the complaint petition stated that there is no averment to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to the caste of the complainant and further referred to the judgment in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was held that according to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view and 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 unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.
The court concluded that the ingredient of the SC/ST Act was absent and there is no separate order for registration of FIR and in exercising said power under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the judicial mind is required to be applied which is lacking in the case in hand and the position that the court is required to pass an order with regard to circumspection is not in dispute but at the same time if a malicious prosecution is there and in absence of any proper application of judicial mind if Court comes to the conclusion that case has been maliciously filed the Court can pass appropriate order.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the accused.
Case Title: Pratul Shahdeo @ Pratul Nath Shahdev vs The State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P.(Cr) No. 378 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj and Ms. Akritee Shree
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Deepankar Roy and Mr. Sahil
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
