Jharkhand High Court
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Roy vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 278 of 2015
----
1. Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Roy
2. Guddu Roy @ Suman Kumar Roy ... Petitioners
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Superintendent of Police, Giridih.
3. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Giridih.
4. Officer-in-Charge, Dhanwar Police Station, Giridih.
5. Prayag Das ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato, A.C. to G.A. V
----
9/ 13.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing for the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no
objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video
Conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the
audio and video clarity and quality.
2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the First Information Report
registered as Dhanwar Police Station Case No.241 of 2013 (G.R. No. 2137 of
2013) registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners have also
prayed to protect them and their family from the frequent attacks and
disturbances caused by the informant.
3. As per the allegations in the first information report, Swaraj Rai,
Guddu Rai, Vinay Rai, Kishor Rai came to the lands of the informant when the
informant along with his nephew and other family members were ploughing
their lands over Khata No.12, Plot No.132/133/138 of Village Ambatand, Police
Station Dhanwar, petitioners and others came there and started assaulting and
blowing filthy words calling them Harijan. It is alleged that Swaraj Rai
assaulted informant's nephew by a sword on head.
4. The main contention of the petitioners is that there is land dispute
between the parties and the present case has been lodged to counter the
success of the petitioners in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
5. The principles have already been laid down as to on what ground
the first information report can be quashed. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana & Others versus
Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, at paragraph 102
various guidelines have been enumerated, which have to be considered while
quashing the First Information Report. As per the said guidelines, if a
cognizable offence is made out from the allegations made in the First
Information Report, the First Information Report cannot be quashed.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, I have gone through the
First Information Report. As per the allegations in the First Information Report,
the petitioners and others came to the field of the informant and started
assaulting and blowing filthy words calling the informant and his family
members as Harijan. It is alleged that Swaraj Rai assaulted informant's
nephew by a sword on head. Thus, since a cognizable offence is made out
from the allegations made in the First Information Report, I am not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. Further, the defence of the petitioners
cannot be seen at this stage. The documents, which the petitioners are
referring to and relying, needs to be proved as per law.
7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
