Jharkhand High Court
Md. Murtaza vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 September, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1855 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1855 of 2017
1. Md. Murtaza, son of Late Abdul Majid
2. Md. Jahangir Alam, son of Jalaluddin Alam
3. Munna Alam @ Md. Shahjahan Alam, son of Jalaluddin Alam
All resident of Hathkathi, P.O. & P.S. Hiranpur, District- Pakur
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Basudeo Ravidas, son of late Dhona Ravidas, resident of village
Jabardaha, P.O. & P.S. Hiranpur, District- Pakur ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi, Advocate
Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate
-----
08/08.09.2022. Heard Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi along with Mr. Md. Asadul Haque,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for the State and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2021, the
prayer of which was amended subsequently vide order dated 01.09.2022
passed in I.A. No.1186 of 2022 arising out of S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No.2 of
2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.873 of 2016, pending in the court of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur.
3. The FIR has been lodged by the informant/opposite party no.2
alleging therein that he belongs to lower caste and having private shops
which he proposed to give it to petitioners on rent. The petitioners have
called mother of the informant namely Bimla Ravidas at their house and
gave Rs.2,000/- and thereafter again give Rs.1,000/- to his mother. The
amount was given for the purpose to take the shop on rent. It has been
further alleged that due to confusion in negotiation the informant wanted to
return the amount to the petitioners but they refused to take the same. In
June, 2016 the mother of the informant and Md. Saukat Ali went to house
of the petitioners to refund the amount but Jahagir told to refund it later. It
has been also alleged that the accused persons have abused the informant
in the name of caste and was blackmailing on the basis of agreement. They
were also giving threatening to the informant and, thereafter, the FIR has
been lodged by the informant.
4. Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi along with Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was instituted against the
petitioners and other persons. He further submits that however charge-
sheet has been submitted only under SC/ST Act. So far as Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code is concerned, charge-sheet has not been submitted
against the petitioners. He also submits that the ingredient of SC/ST Act is
not made out and the case is purely civil in nature. He further submits that
in the entire allegation there is no allegation that it has happened in public
view. He submits that the learned court has taken cognizance without
considering this aspect of the matter.
5. Per contra, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2
submits that there are allegations and the learned court has taken
cognizance by passing reasoned order and, therefore, this Court may not
entertain this petition, at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that
charge-sheet has been submitted and the learned court has rightly taken
cognizance.
7. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds
that in the complaint, the allegations are for not providing the shop on rent.
The dispute is with regard to shop in question. On perusal of the complaint,
it transpires that the caste name of opposite party no.2 taken by the
petitioners, is not disclosed in the complaint petition. It has happened in
public view, is not apparent on perusal of the complaint petition. The police
has submitted charge-sheet and two of the accused persons have been
exonerated. The complaint was filed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code as well as SC/ST Act. The police has not found any ingredient of
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and charge-
sheet has not been submitted under that Section. The learned court has
taken cognizance under SC/ST Act. It appears that in the complaint petition,
there are allegations of rent with regard to shop and subsequently in the
last paragraph only, taking caste name by the petitioners has been
disclosed. It appears that for civil dispute, only to implicate the petitioners
unnecessarily SC/ST Act has been incorporated. A reference may be made
to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand & another , reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710. Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said judgment are quoted
herein below:
"18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason
that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the
parties are litigating over possession of the land. The
allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims
title over the property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act
is not made out.\
xxx xxx xxx
22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet
on the ground that the allegation does not make out an
offence under the Act against the appellant merely because
Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property
dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent 2 was
a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a
vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste
will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the
allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled
Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of
the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the
knowledge does not bar any person to protect his rights by
way of a procedure established by law."
8. Admittedly for a civil dispute, the case has been lodged. The police
has not found the allegation with regard to Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code as charge-sheet has been submitted under SC/ST Act.
9. In view of the above facts and considering the judgment passed in
Hitesh Verma (supra) and also considering that it has not happened in
public view, no case under the said Act is made out against the petitioners.
Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings including the order taking
cognizance dated 10.12.2021, arising out of S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No.2 of
2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.873 of 2016, pending in the court of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur is, hereby, quashed.
10. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
11. Interim order dated 10.11.2017 stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
