Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Prakash ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1172 of 2022
----
Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Prakash Yadav @ Mungeri @ Mungeri Yadav
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand . ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Priya Shrestha, Advocate
----
3/10.06.2022 Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the allegation of addressing the complainant was
not in public and in view of that, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 is not attracted. He further
submits that in the complaint itself it has been disclosed that the
petitioner no.2 has approached the police and thereafter has filed the
complaint and the case is also not disclosed has held by the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
A.P.", (2008) 12 SCC 531, paragraph no.6 is quoted below:
"6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in
the entire complaint is that on 27-5-2004, the appellant abused
them with the name of their caste. According to the basic
ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought
to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member
of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent
3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with
intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire
complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused
was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to
humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the
basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint,
then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the
appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be
totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."
Paragraph no.25 of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "Swaran Singh v. State", (2008) 8 SCC
435 is also quoted below:
"25. A perusal of the FIR clearly shows that, prima facie,
an offence is made out against Appellants 2 and 3. As already
stated above, at this stage we have not to see whether the
allegations in the FIR are correct or not. We only have to see
whether treating the FIR allegations as correct an offence is
made out or not. In our opinion, treating the allegations in the
FIR to be correct an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is
prima facie made out against Appellants 2 and 3 because it
prima facie seems that the intent of the appellants was to
insult or humiliate the first informant, and this was done
within the public view."
The learned counsel for the petitioner will array the
informant/ complainant as O.P.No.2 in this petition in course of the day.
Let notice be issued upon the newly added O.P.No.2-
informant/complainant by registered post with A/d as well as under
ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed with two weeks.
The petitioner shall not be arrested in connection
with Borio(J) P.S.Case No.58 of 2022 pending in the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj till the next
date.
The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation.
Post on 22.09.2022.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
