Jharkhand High Court

Rati Mohan Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 July, 2022

                                 1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                         ----

Cr.M.P. No. 1424 of 2020

----

Rati Mohan Sharma, aged about 42 years, son of late Brajendra Mohan Sharma, resident of Manoram Nagar, Luby Circular Road, PO and PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, PIN 826 001 ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Manu Bauri, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Badal Bouri, resident of village Kunthol, PO Poddardih, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad ...... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1340 of 2020

----

Prabhat Kumar Roy @ P.K. Roy, aged about 56 years, son of late Sukhendra Nath Roy, resident of Roy Niwas, Lindsey Club Road, Hirapur, PO and PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, PIN 826 001..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Manu Bauri, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Badal Bouri, resident of village Kunthol, PO Poddardih, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad...Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1421 of 2020

----

Sadanand Suman, aged about 60 years, son of late Jhuri Prasad Sah, resident of Bhugalow No.1, Gopalpura Colony, Mugma, PO Mugma, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad, PIN 828 204 ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Manu Bauri, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Badal Bouri, resident of village Kunthol, PO Poddardih, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad...Opp.Parties

With Cr.M.P. No. 1427 of 2020

----

Anil Kumar Rai, aged about 53 years, son of late Sriram Rai, resident of Qr. No.C/01/03, Mohanpur, PO Lalganj, District West Bardhaman, West Bengal, PIN 713 359 ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Manu Bauri, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Badal Bouri, resident of village Kunthol, PO Poddardih, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad ...... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1431 of 2020

----

Brahma Prakash Sharan, aged about 63 years, son of late Tripurari Sharan, resident of 101, Dakshayan Enclave, Kunj Bihar, Argora, PO and PS Argora, District Ranchi, PIN 834 002 ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Manu Bauri, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Badal Bouri, resident of village Kunthol, PO Poddardih, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad...Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Mr. P.D.Agarwal, Advocate Mrs.Nehala Sharmin, Advocate

----

4/14.07.2022 In all these petitions common question of fact and

complaint including the cognizance order are the subject matter that is

why all these cases have been heard together with consent of the

parties.

The notices have been issued upon the O.P.No.2 by order

dated 08.10.2020 and the office note suggest that notice have been

effected upon the O.P.No.2 however, on repeated call nobody has

responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

In all these petitions prayer is made for quashing the order

dated 3.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI,

cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in connection with SC/ST Case

No.12 of 2019/ C.P.No.286 of 2019, however, cognizance has been taken

under section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

and the summoning order is dated 20.12.2019, pending in the court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad.

The written complaint was filed alleging therein that the

prosecution case arises out of a written complaint dated 23.1.2019 of the

complainant dated 23.1.2019. The complainant harijan by caste and falls

under scheduled caste category while all other accused persons are

members of non-SC/ST category. He is a workman working in Hariajam

colliery of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Mugma. The accused no.6, Chinta

Das wrongly submitted an application dated 01.10.2015 to the

management of M/s ECL complaining that Manu Bouri, the complainant,

is the son of Bholu Bouri and not of Badal Bouri and he was wrongly

taken employment by falsely describing himself as the son of Bina Bourin

and she has also submitted a genealogical table which is baseless and

not correct. The accused no.6 has furnished such information so that the

complainant can be dismissed from service and take revenge of long

standing enmity between the accused no.6 and the complainant. The

accused no.6 Chinta Das has no authority or has any authority to submit

such genealogical table and therefore the same is liable to be rejected.

On coming to learn about these facts he went to the house of accused

no.6 on which Chinta Das questioned the complainant as to how he

entered his house being a Harijan. Chinta Das thereafter caught hold of

the collar of his shirt and pushed him out of her house. He thereafter

went to meet the accused persons and enquired about the about facts.

The management thereafter called the accused no.6 Chinta Das and all

the accused persons abused the complainant by calling name of his caste

harijan and turned him out of the office. The complainant informed the

S.P., Dhanbad in advance with an expectation that action would be taken

but the police did not take any action and being left with no other

remedy the complainant is filing the complaint.

Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that all these petitioners are the employees of the Eastern

Coalfields Limited. The O.P.no.2 has been charge sheeted by the

company for fraudulent employment in the company and subsequently

he has been dismissed on 18.8.2018 and after dismissal from service the

O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint on 23.1.2019. He submits that no

ingredient of section 3(i)(s) of the said Act is made out and nothing has

been happened in the public view and the case of the petitioners are fully

covered in the light of the judgment in the case of "Swaran Singh and

Others v. State, through Standing Counsel and Another, reported in

(2008) 8 SCC 435".

The learned counsels for the respondent State submits that

the learned court after looking into the enquiry witnesses has taken

cognizance and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

The Court has perused the complaint petition and finds that

in the complaint itself it has been disclosed that the O.P.No.2 has been

dismissed by the company and finds that it has been alleged in the

paragraph no.8 that what has happened that was indoor of the office.

The public view has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of "Swaran Singh and Others v. State, through Standing Counsel

and Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435".

There has been an intent or purpose to incorporate the

words 'public view' which does suggest that if one is insulted or

intimidated not in public view, then it would not be an offence under

section 3(i)(s) of the said Act, rather the said offence would be attracted

if a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is insulted or

intimidated with a view to be humiliated within the public view or within

public hearing as even at a private place or a building, if a member of the

scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is insulted or intimidated with a view

to humiliate him, he can be brought within the ambit of the said

provision provided such offence has been committed with the public view

or within the public hearing. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Others v. State, through Standing

Counsel and Another (supra), wherein it has been observed at paragraph

28 as under:

"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by

someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."

Moreover, in the entire complaint it has not been disclosed

that these petitioners are not members of that community which is one

of the ingredients for maintaining the case under the SC/ST Act. It

appears that since O.P.No.2 has been dismissed on the ground of

fraudulently taking employment and maliciously this complaint case has

been filed against the petitioners who happen to be the officers of the

company, to allow this proceeding further in the court below will amount

to abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order

dated 3.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI,

cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in connection with SC/ST Case

No.12 of 2019/ C.P.No.286 of 2019, pending in the court of learned