Jharkhand High Court
Laxman Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 412 of 2013
Laxman Pandey ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Nilesh Tirkey ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : None.
------
05/ 05.04.2023 O.P. No. 2 had not appeared on 18.04.2022 that's why the
matter was adjourned. Today, when the matter was taken up, nobody has
responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, in spite of repeated calls and that's
why the matter has been heard on merits in absence of O.P. No. 2.
2. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2012, by
which, cognizance for the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been taken against the
petitioner, in connection with Complaint Case No. 395 of 2012, pending in
the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
4. The complaint case was filed by one Nilesh Tirkey in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi on 2.3.12 alleging therein
that the elder brother of the complaint namely Richard Tirkey was arrested
by the police on 1.3.12 and at about 4.00 PM. he was remanded in Lowar
Bazaar Case No. 77/12 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1090/12 in the
Court of Sri Yashwant Prakash, J.M., 1" Class, Ranchi.
Further it is alleged that at the time of remand said Richard
Tirkey in the Court premises the complainant and his other witnesses
were also with the said accused and in course of talk with the said
Richard Tirkey by the complainant and his relatives and witnesses
the Informant of this case said Laxman Pandey accused in this case
caught the collar of the informant in the presence of the witnesses
and gave a slap in the cheek of the complainant and an objection
raised by the complainant and his witnesses, the accused Laxman
Pandey and two other relatives of the Laxman Pandey became
very angry and the said accused Laxman Pandey started giving
threatening to the complainant taking the caste name and filthy
language.
Further it is alleged that the said Laxman Pandey/ petitioner
also threatened the accused person and said that he is a man of Police
personnel having influential with the higher officer and he will finish
the entire family member.
Further it is alleged that this occurrence and misbehaviour and
other subsequent occurrence have also took place in presence of the
witnesses.
Further it is alleged that there was a lady constable and she
slapped Richard Tirkey while he was in the custody and such the
accused persons committed serious offences under the
aforementioned section Atrocities Act (S.C. & S.T.) as mentioned
above.
5. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has lodged a case against own brother
of the complainant on 01.03.2012, which was registered as Lower Bazar
P.S. Case No. 77 of 2012 and in that case the petitioner has made
allegation that Naresh Tirkey and Richard Tirkey (own brother of the
complainant) have taken away his daughter in the month of February,
2012 to any other place. He submits that the victim girl has also supported
the version of her father in her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. He submits that only to pressurize the petitioner, as he happens to
be the police constable and to compromise the case, the present complaint
has been filed, which is false in nature. He further submits that learned
court has taken the cognizance under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, however, there is no averment made therein that this
petitioner was not belonging to the caste of the complaint and to buttress
his arguments, he relied in the case of "Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Others", reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-6 held as follows:-
"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 appellantaccused 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."
6. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the entire criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of
law and the same may kindly be quashed.
7. Mr. Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that
the learned court after looking into the materials available on record
including the statement of enquiry witness and the solemn affirmation of
the complainant has taken the cognizance.
8. In view of the above facts and submissions of the parties, the
court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that
admittedly, this petitioner, who happens to be a constable, has filed a case
against the own brother of the complainant, which was registered as
Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 77 of 2012 and the allegation in that FIR is
that the brother of the complainant and other accused person have taken
the girl of the petitioner and the said girl has supported the version of the
petitioner in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which has
been brought on record in Annexure-4 to this petition. Further in the
complaint filed by the complainant, there is no disclosure of the fact that
this petitioner is not belonging to the caste of the complaint. It appears that
only by way of counter-blast, the present case has been filed and to allow
to continue the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of the
court. The case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah (Supra).
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2012, by which, cognizance for the
offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with
Complaint Case No. 395 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed.
10. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
