Jharkhand High Court
Ram Pramod Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 234 of 2021
----
Ram Pramod Singh, aged about 52 years, son of late Rajendra Singh,
Resident of Saraidhela Tola, Nutandih, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela,
District Dhanbad ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Bimla Hadin @ Bimla Hardin, daughter of late Karmu Hardi, resident of
Kola Kusma, P.O. K.G. Ashram, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate
----
7/31.08.2022 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that he is not pressing the prayer with regard to order dated 05.10.2020.
He submits that he has confined his prayer for quashing the entire
criminal proceeding in connection with C.P.Case No.2237 of 2016, S.T.
Case No.232/2018, pending in the court of learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Spl. Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Dhanbad.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the case is arising out of an agreement for sale of land. He submits
that Rs.8 lakhs was provided to the O.P.No.2 for the sale of the land on
07.07.2010 and for return of the amount in question by the informant,
the petitioner refused to give the said amount to the informant and used
filthy language against the petitioner. He submits that the case is civil in
nature and the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. He
submits that Jamabandi of the O.P.No.2 has been cancelled and he has
moved before this Court under the writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has relied in the case of Hitesh Verma v. The
State Uttarakhand and Another [Cr.Appeal No.707 of 2020, arising out of
SLP (Criminal) No.3585 of 2020].
In the case of 'Hitesh Verma', the ingredient of SC/ST Act
has not been made out. In that case the words were not used in public
view and that is why the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the
proceeding. In the case in hand, in paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the
complaint petition, it has been disclosed that the words have been used
against the petitioner by taking caste name and using filthy language in
presence of other persons. In that view of the matter, in the public view
it has been occurred in presence of the public. Thus, ingredients of
SC/ST Act is made out whereas the judgment relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the case of 'Hitesh Verma'(supra), is not
helping the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the O.P.no.2 submits that the Jamabandi of the O.P.No.2 has not been
cancelled rather the Jamabandi of Manbharan Turi has been cancelled.
He submits that there are allegations and he used filthy language against
the O.P.No.2. He further submits that the petitioner has earlier moved for
anticipatory bail which was rejected in Cr.A.(SJ) No.2023/2017 on
27.02.2018.
For quashing of the 82 Cr.P.C proceeding he moved before
this Court in Cr.M.P.no.650/2019 which was allowed in favour of the
petitioner and he further filed Cr.M.P.No.970 of 2020 for quashing of the
second 82 Cr.P.C proceeding which was allowed on 08.09.2020. He
submits that now for quashing section 82 Cr.P.C order vide order dated
05.10.2020 the petitioner has filed the petition, the petitioner has filed
this petition for quashing entire criminal proceeding.
The Court has perused the contents of the F.I.R and finds
that there are serious allegations of using the caste name and filthy
language against the O.P.No.2 particularly at paragraph no.6 and 7 of the
complaint. A prima facie case under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. Moreover, the petitioner has earlier
moved before this Court for anticipatory bail in the aforementioned
petition. The cognizance has been taken in the year 2016. The petitioner
has approached this Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in
the year 2021 belatedly. There is no illegality in the cognizance order
which has been brought on record by way of filing the I.A. Under the
section 482 Cr.P.C time limit is not prescribed but it does not mean that
any petition for quashing can be filed at belatedly under section 482
Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.234 of 2021 is dismissed.
I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
