Jharkhand High Court

Chandra Bhushan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2023

                                         1                       Cr.M.P. No.4632 of 2022




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No. 4632 of 2022


              1. Chandra Bhushan, son of Sh. Vinay Kumar Yadav, aged about 31
                years, presently posted as Manager (Retail Sales) of the Ranchi 3
                Retail Sales Area under the Ranchi Divisional Office of the Indian
                Oil Corporation Limited and having his office at Namkum, P.O. &
                P.S. -Namkum, District -Ranchi, Jharkhand.
              2. Kunal Kishore @ Kunal Kishori, son of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, aged
                about 31 years, presently posted as Manager (Retail Sales) of the
                Tatanagar 1 Retail Sales Area under the Ranchi Divisional Office of
                the Indian Oil Corporatin Limited and having his office at
                Namkum, P.O. & P.S. -Namkum, District -Ranchi.
                                                 ....              Petitioners
                                       Versus

          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. Sarju Paswan, son of Late Shibu Paswan, resident of 15-A,
             Adityapur Jaiprakash Udyan, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. -Adityapur,
             District -Seraikella -Kharsawan. ....            Opp. Parties

                                       PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Mohan, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Saurav Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a

prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection

with Complaint Case No. 10 of 2021 including the order dated

04.08.2022, passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST

Act, Seraikella whereby and where under process has been

issued against the petitioners and another accused for the

offences punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal

Code and under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, now

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

Seraikella.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 13.12.2021 at about 4:30

P.M., the petitioners along with another co-accused person

abused the complainant by using his caste name and insulted

the complainant and his family members and criminally

intimidated them. The learned Special Judge, taking into

consideration the complaint, the statement on solemn

affirmation of the complainant and statement of the inquiry

witnesses, vide order dated 04.08.2022 found prima facie case

for the offences punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian

Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

and ordered issuance of process against the petitioners and the

co-accused person.

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners

that there is no allegation in the complaint or anywhere else

that the petitioners are not the members of the Scheduled Caste

& Scheduled Tribe which is a sine-qua-non for constituting the

offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989. It is next submitted that undisputedly the petitioner

no.1 was the Manager (Retail Sale) and the petitioner no.2 was

the Sales Officer, Tatanagar -1, Retail Sales Area, on the alleged

date of occurrence and admittedly the petrol pump is situated

at the land belonging to Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand &

Another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, para -16 of which reads

as under:-

"16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the civil court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners

that when there is a dispute about the possession of the land,

the same would not disclose any offence under the penal

provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the victim is abused,

intimidated or harassed only for the reason that he or she

belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is next

submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners,

drawing attention of this Court to the unimpeachable document

which is the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Seraikella, the copy of which has been kept at annexure -7 that

the Circle Officer of Gamharia who was appointed as the

Magistrate; directed that on 13.12.2021, the said land be made

free from encroachment. Drawing attention of this Court to

annexure -8, another unimpeachable document, it is submitted

by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the same is

the handing over possession report which also bears the

signature of the Circle Officer, Gamharia and the Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, Adityapur Police Station as a special

witness, and submits that this complaint has been filed for

wrecking vengeance against the officers who are the public

servants of a Public Sector undertaking like Indian Oil

Corporation of India Limited in connection of their discharge of

their official duty without taking any sanction for their

prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that entire criminal

proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 10 of 2021

including the order dated 04.08.2022, passed by the learned

Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella whereby and

where under process has been issued against the petitioners

and one other accused for the offences punishable under

Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section

3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, now pending in the court

of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella be quashed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the

opposite party no.2 on the other raised objection regarding the

maintainability of this petition by submitting that since the

order dated 04.08.2022 is not an interlocutory order, and as a

provision of appeal has been provided for in Section 14A(1) of

the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 from orders passed by the Special Judge,

which are not interlocutory nature, hence this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in view of a special provision of appeal, is

not maintainable and in support of his contention that the order

dated 04.08.2022 is not an interlocutory order, the learned

counsel for the opposite party no.2 relies upon the Judgment of

Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 809,

para -21 of which reads as under:-

"21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind--an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue."

Hence, it is submitted that since there is specific provision, the

inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised

in this case, hence this criminal miscellaneous petition the

dismissed being not maintainable.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation

in holding that the order dated 04.08.2022 is not an

interlocutory order and since appeal has been specifically

provided for in 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the orders

other than the interlocutory orders; this criminal miscellaneous

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.