Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1210 of 2019
----
1.Narendra Kumar Srivastava, s/o late Paras Prasad, aged about 55 years,
residentof Vidyapati Nagar, Main Road, Baridih, PO Baridih, PS Sidgora,
Dist.East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand
2.Surendra Srivastava @ Surendra Kumar Srivastava, s/o late Paras
Prasad, aged about 50 years, resident of Shiv Bagan, 21/B, Agrico, PO
Agrico, PS Sidgora, District East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand
3.Chhotu Srivastava @ Chottu Srivastava, s/o Surendra Kumar Srivastava,
aged about 24 years, resident of Shiv Bagan, 21/B Agrico, PO Agrico, PS
Sidgora, Dist. East Sinbhbhum, State Jharkhand
4.Nitesh Srivastava @ Nitesh, s/o Surendra Kumar Srivastava, aged about
24 years, resident of Shiv Bagan, 21/B, Agrico, PO Agrico, PS Sidgora,
District East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Nilmani Khakha, w/o Rajendra Prasad, resident of Birsanagar Zone No.6
Near Golmuri Club Gitanjali Garden, PO and PS Birsanagar, District East
Singhbhum State Jharkhand ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. P.A.N.Roy, Advocate
For the O.P.no.2 :- Mr.Saurav Kumar, Advocate
----
5/05.04.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Birsanagar (SC/ST) P.S.Case No.11/2018 dated
05.12.2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2019,
pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge, Jamshedpur.
Mr.Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that now the compromise has been taken place between the
petitioners as well as the O.P.No.2. He further submits that the complaint
was filed maliciously and there were some dispute with regard to land of
about 10 bighas between the petitioners and the O.P.No.2. He further
submits that on merit also this case is fit to be allowed on behalf of the
petitioners in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand", (2020) 10 SCC 710.
Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"19. This Court in a judgment reported as Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra issued certain
directions in respect of investigations required to be conducted
under the Act. In a review filed by the Union against the said
judgment, this Court in a judgment reported as Union of India v.
State of Maharashtra reviewed the directions issued by this
Court and held that if there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR,
the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked.
The Court held as under: (Union of India case, SCC p. 797, para
52)
"52. There is no presumption that the members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the
provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the
members of the upper castes or the members of the elite class.
For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a
person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to
the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the
other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge
even a first information report, much less, a false one. In case it
is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty
investigation or for other various reasons including human
failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases
which may be false that can be a ground for interference by the
Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse. In
such a situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under
Section 482 CrPC."
The learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 also
accepted that compromise has been taken place between the parties.
I.A. No.7022 of 2021 has been filed and in the said I.A.
there are separate affidavits on behalf of the O.P.No.2 as well as the
petitioners.
In view of the above facts and the submissions of the
learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and looking to the
paragraph no.19 of the aforesaid judgment, prayer made in the petition
is allowed.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Birsanagar (SC/ST) P.S.Case No.11/2018 dated 05.12.2018 including the
order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2019, pending in the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Jamshedpur are
hereby quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.
Cr.M.P. No.1210 of 2019 is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No.7022 of 2021 stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
