Jharkhand High Court
Shanti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 297 of 2021
1. Shanti Devi, aged about 55 years, W/o Late Sarju Pandit
2. Deepak Kr. Singh @ Dipak Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o Late
Jitendra Singh
3. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Singh, aged about 28 years, S/o Late
Mahendra Mistri
4. Shankar Kumar, aged about 36 years, S/o late Yamuna Prasad.
All resident of Industry Colliery, P.O. Dhansar, P.S. Jharia, District-
Dhanbad ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Daulti Devi, W/o Nanhe Paswan, resident of Rai Area Bastacola near
Mandir, P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, G.P.-II
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
-----
07/21.09.2021. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj
Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party-State and Mr. Zaid Ahmad,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken through Video
Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account
the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have
complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent
this matter has been heard on merit.
The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 31.07.2019 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate I/C, Dhanbad, in Dhanbad SC/ST
P.S. Case No.14/2017, corresponding to G.R. No.3301/2017, whereby,
cognizance under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes ad Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been taken against the petitioners.
The prosecution case has been lodged on the basis of written
complaint of the informant/opposite party no.2, wherein, it has been alleged
that on 05.09.2017 at about 9-10 O'clock Shankar, Dipak Singh, Jitendra
Sharma, Sarju Pandit, Shanti Devi came to her house and forcibly open the
cattle and assaulted upon it, when opposite party no.2 and her family
members opposed then they started to abuse by taking their caste name
and threatened to leave the house, which was opposed by the victim and
the accused person Shankar thrown her by catching her log and assaulted
her along with other accused persons. When daughter and son-in-law of the
informant came to save her, all the accused persons started assaulting
them. All the household articles thrown by the accused persons and locked
the door of the house and took possession and assaulted upon husband of
the opposite party no.2 and threatened not to allow him to do the job in
BCCL, kill him and throw his body into mines. It was also alleged that the
accused persons snatched the Mangal Sutra and ear ring of daughter of the
opposite party no.2 and they also took Rs.20,000/- from her house. It was
further alleged that the accused persons have taken the victim in a public
place and assaulted and ashamed to her. It was also alleged that Shankar
spoken that he will open a garage and Dipak Singh, Jitendra Sharma and
Sarju Pandit want to keep theft diesel in the house of opposite party no.2.
Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
cognizance order is not tenable in view of the fact that the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has got no authority to take cognizance under Section
3(X) of the Scheduled Castes ad Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities).
He draws attention of the Court to Section 14 of the said Act and submits
that the Court of Sessions has been described as a Special Court to try the
offences under this Act and only that Court is having power to take
cognizance of the offences under the said Act.
Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, learned counsel for the State submits that the
Chief Judicial Magistrate has got no power in view of Section of the said Act
and the cognizance order is bad in law.
This has also been fairly accepted by Mr. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel
for opposite party no.2.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Section 14 of the said Act
in the case of Moly and another v. State of Kerala , reported in 2004
Crl. L. J. 1812 (SC) in paragraphs 8 and 9, which are quoted herein
below:
"8.Section14 of the Act says that:
"for the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State
Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of
the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try
the offences under this Act."
9. So it is for trial of the offences under the Act that a
particular Court of Session in each district is sought to be
specified as a Special Court. Though the word "trial" is not
defined either in the Code or in the Act it is clearly
distinguishable from inquiry. The word "inquiry" is defined in
Section 2(g) of the Code as "every inquiry, other than a trial,
conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court". So the
trial is distinct from inquiry and inquiry must always be a
forerunner to the trial. The Act contemplates only the trial to
be conducted by the Special Court. The added reason for
specifying a Court of Session as a Special Court is to ensure
speed for such trial. "Special Court" is defined in the Act as "a
Court of Session specified as a Special Court in Section 14"
(vide Section 2(1)(d)."
Considering the above pleadings of the parties and on perusal of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moly and
another (supra), there is no doubt that only the Special Court constituted
for the purpose of the said Act is competent to take cognizance under the
Sections of the Scheduled Castes ad Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in the present case, the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 31.07.2019 took cognizance under
Scheduled Castes ad Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Section 14 of the said Act has
been substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.01.2016 and cognizance order
has been passed in the year 2019. Thus, this was already in force at that
time when the cognizance has been taken.
In view of the aforesaid facts, entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate I/C, Dhanbad, in Dhanbad SC/ST P.S. Case No.14/2017,
corresponding to G.R. No.3301/2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to re-
examine the matter and proceed in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
