Yogendra Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1791 Jhar

                                       1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

W.P.(Cr.) No. 90 of 2019

----

Yogendra Saw, S/o Laxman Saw, aged about 53 years, resident of Hurhuru Road, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S., Town and District Hazaribagh .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

      1.The State of Jharkhand
      2.Kauleshwar Ganjhu                             .... Opposite Parties
                                       ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioner        :-    Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra , Advocate
       For the State             :-    Mr. Deepankar Ray, Advocate

                                       ----

6/27.04.2023        Heard Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr. Deepankar Ray, the learned State counsel.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR giving

rise to the Barkagaon P.S.Case No.39 of 2019 dated 25.02.2019 under

section 147, 148, 341, 323, 504, 506, 385, 34 of I.P.C read with section 3

and 4 of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, pending in the court of learned Special Jude, SC/ST Act,

Hazaribagh.

3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that informant on

27.2.2019 went to panchayati bhawan from his village Urej and while

returning from there at 15.30 hrs three unknown persons, one whose

face was covered by helmet and other two whose faces were covered by

gamcha asked the informant to stop his vehicle and when he stopped

then those unknown persons took out pistol from their waist and started

saying that you resign from AJSU party and come with Mantriji and also

said that it is better for harijan of Barkagaon to come with Teli. Because

of this incident, he and his family members are frightened. Thereafter

they called ex-minister Yogendra Saw over phone and speaker of the

phone was on and the informant heard that those unknown persons were

told that if the informant understands then its alright otherwise kill him

and there after informant out of fear agreed to them and said that he will

support them in the election. The informant came to that previously also

member of Extremist group namely Tiger group were sent who were

caught by the police in Ambatola bazar which is registered as P.S. Case

No.89 of 14 and on aforesaid background, FIR was registered against the

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has

been malafidely lodged against the petitioner. He submits that district

administration has wrongly implicated the petitioner in the case. He

submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the

judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Haryana

v. Bhajan Lal', 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. On these ground, he submits that

the FIR may kindly be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Deepankar Ray, the learned State

counsel submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner.

Only the FIR is under challenge in this petition. He submits that if

malafide is proved, then only the case of 'State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal'

(supra) relied by the petitioner will be applied. In the case in hand, the

allegations are there and this petition is not fit to be entertained.

6. The Court has perused the contents of the F.I.R and finds

that there is allegation that the party-men of this petitioner threatened

the informant. It has been alleged that informant while returning from

village Urej and while returning from there at 15.30 hrs three unknown

persons, one whose face was covered by helmet and other two whose

faces were covered by gamcha asked the informant to stop his vehicle

and when he stopped then those unknown persons took out pistol from

their waist and started saying that you resign from AJSU party and come

with Mantriji and also said that it is better for harijan of Barkagaon to

come with Teli. Thus, they called ex-minister Yogendra Saw over phone

and speaker of the phone was on and the informant heard that those

unknown persons were told that if the informant understands then its

alright otherwise kill him. There are parameters of quashing of the FIR.

Such allegations are there and the investigation is going on. As per the

counter affidavit filed wherein it is disclosed that there is criminal

antecedent of the petitioner.

7. In view of the above, W.P.(Cr.) No.90 of 2019 is dismissed.

8. Pending petition, if any, also stands dismissed accordingly.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/ ,