Anil Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4673 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 502 of 2022
              Anil Singh                                      ...        ... Appellant
                                            Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Baleshwar Ravidas                            ...        ... Respondents
                                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

              For the Appellant          : M/s Kaushik Sarkhel & Anupam Anand, Advocates
              For the State              : APP
              For the informant          : Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate
                                                ---
06/22.11.2022:           Heard the parties.

The instant appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in connection with S.C./S.T. Case No.62 of 2019 whereby it has been held that the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(i)(s) of the S.C./S.T. Act are made out and summon has been issued against the appellant.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR itself suggests that the complainant/informant was in search of a piece of land for the purpose of school. The allegation against the appellant is that he has introduced the land owner. The agreement has been entered between the complainant and the land owner and this appellant has not even the witness in the said agreement. It appears that subsequently agreement has not been honoured and registry has been refused. The complainant has demanded the money and then he has been abused.

It has been further submitted that the allegation of abusement is upon other accused i.e. land owner and not upon this appellant. It has been further submitted that no offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal is made out as the ingredients of the said Sections are lacking in the complaint petition itself.

For this purpose, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. Versus Jagnar Singh and Anr, reported in 2009(5) Supreme 368. On the above basis, the order of suspension has been challenged.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as counsel for the informant/complainant have opposed the prayer of the appellant, by referring to the Solemn Affirmation and it has been submitted that the allegation of assault and abusement is against this appellant also. Further, by referring to paragraph-18 of the complaint petition, it has been submitted that the allegation is against all the three accused persons including present appellant and as such, offence under S.C./S.T. Act is made out. Therefore, impugned order of issuance of summon cannot be quashed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that there is allegation of abusement against present appellant as well as against other accused and the same has been supported in the Solemn Affirmation by the witnesses.

Thus, prima facie offence under S.C./S.T. Act is made out for issuance of summon against the appellant.

So far as offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there appears to be some substance in the argument of the appellant and accordingly, he is given liberty to file appropriate petition before the court below.

With the above observations and directions, this criminal appeal stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/