Jharkhand High Court
Laxmi Mandal (Halka Karmchari) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2322 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2322 of 2015
Laxmi Mandal (Halka Karmchari) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Fulkumari Tudu ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : None
-----
17/08.12.2023 Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.
2. Opposite party no.2 has already appeared and in spite of that, on
repeated calls nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Identical was the situation on 16.02.2022 and opposite party no.2 further
took time on 09.03.2022. In view of that, this petition is being heard in
absence of opposite party no.2.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.09.2015 in P.C.R.
Case No.443 of 2014, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara.
4. The protest complaint case was filed alleging therein that the
petitioner is the Halka Karamchari and he belongs to Santhal community
and the complainant's mother had filed a Pradhani Appointment Case before
the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara on the basis of hereditary. One
day the petitioner came to her house and demanded Rs.5,000/- for
submitting an inquiry report in her favour and when such illegal demand
was not fulfilled, the petitioner prepared wrong report. The clerk also took
rent of the land from the father of the complainant for the years 2011 to
2013 and issued rent of the said land and again for the year 2013-14
illegally. On being protest by the complainant on 03.12.2013 at about 12:00
a.m., when she went to the Circle Office, the said clerk used abusive
language by calling her Santhal with intention to this respect and put her
down in the eyes of public. It was further alleged that initially the FIR was
registered but the police submitted final form without considering the
matter and without examining the witnesses.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier
complaint was filed before the learned Court, which was sent by the learned
Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and investigation
and pursuant to that, Fatehpur P.S. Case No.52/2013 was registered and the
police has submitted final form exonerating the petitioner, who happened to
be a Halka Karamchari. He further submits that on the protest petition, the
learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. He submits that the
subject matter of the FIR as well as the protest petition are similar and even
the cognizance has been taken under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
6. Ms. Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the final form
was submitted by the police, however, on the protest petition, the learned
Court has been pleased to take cognizance.
7. It is admitted position that the complaint case was earlier filed, which
was sent for registration of FIR and investigation and, thereafter, Fatehpur
P.S. Case No.52 of 2013 was registered, in which, the police has submitted
final form whereby the petitioner was not sent up for trial. It appears that
on the protest petition, the learned Court has been pleased to take
cognizance. The petitioner happened to be a Halka Karamchari and he was
discharging official duty.
8. Further, there is no whisper in the complaint that the petitioner was
not belonging to the caste of the complainant and if such a situation is
there, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
is not attracted. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.,
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531.
9. Further in the case filed by the petitioner, opposite party no.2 has
been acquitted. There are case and counter case.
10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.09.2015 in P.C.R.
Case No.443 of 2014, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara are quashed.
11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
