Siyakant @ Neeraj Pandey @ Chandra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4433 Jhar

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4433 Jhar
Judgement Date : 7 November, 2022

Jharkhand High Court

Siyakant @ Neeraj Pandey @ Chandra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 November, 2022

                                        1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No. 2234 of 2021
                                        ----

Siyakant @ Neeraj Pandey @ Chandra Kant Pandey @ Siyakant Pandey @ Niraj Pandey, aged about 36 years, son of Vishundev Pandey, resident of Rajwadih, P.O.-Rajwadih, P.S.-Daltonganj Sadar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Kunti Devi, wife of Sudheshwar Manjhi, resident of village-Rajwadih, Daltonganj Sadar, PO-Pajwadih, P.S. Sadar, District Palamau, Jharkhand ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishth, Spl.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate

----

9/07.11.2022 Heard Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishth, the learned counsel appearing

for the respondent State and Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel

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

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding along with SC/ST Case No.34/20, in connection with

Sadar P.S.No.70 of 2019 whereby cognizance has been taken under

section 504 /506/34 of the I.P.C and under section 3(i)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

as well as quashing of the cognizance order dated 14.12.2020, pending

in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge

SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.

The prosecution was lodged alleging therein that the FIR

cum complaint petition is that on 24.04.2019 while the complainant was

at her house, the petitioner along with four others on three motorcycles

arrived at 10.00 am and started damaging the Khuntagarhi done by the

government in front of her house. Upon which the complainant and her

daughter in law came there and started that the land belongs to them

and they are damaging Khuntagarhi. Upon which the petitioner took out

a pistol from the waist and started abusing her by naming her caste and

threatened to leave the place. The matter was informed to the police but

when no action was taken, then she filed a complaint case in the court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau. On the basis of above

complaint Sadar P.S.Case No.70 of 2019 was registered against the

accused persons.

Mr. Mardi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner at the outset confined is prayer with regard to the cognizance

so far taken under section 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the

ingredients of those sections have not been made out and the grounds to

prosecute the petitioner under that section has not been made. He

submits that the case of the petitioner has not been disclosed in the

complaint petition he relied on the case of "Gorige Pentaiah v. State

of A.P.", (2008) 12 SCC 531. He further submits that this aspect of

the matter has been again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of "Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand and Another'

(Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020-Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3585 of

2020). Paragraph no.21 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non- disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there as civil dispute between the parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under section 3(i)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment"

Relying on this judgment, he submits that cognizance with

regard to SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is bad in law.

On the other hand, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned

counsel appearing for the O.P.no.2 submits that ingredients under those

sections are there and in that view of the matter the learned court has

rightly taken cognizance.

Mr. Vashisth, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent State submits that the charge sheet has been submitted and

thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance.

In view of the above facts and the submissions of the

learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone

through the materials on record. On seeing of the complaint case, it