Dr. Kumari Prabhavati Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1125 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1125 Jhar
Judgement Date : 15 March, 2023

Jharkhand High Court

Dr. Kumari Prabhavati Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 March, 2023

                                       1

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

Cr.M.P. No. 2189 of 2012

----

1.Dr. Kumari Prabhavati Sinha, wife of Dr. Amarendra Prasad, residing at Priya Health Centre, United Bank Lane, Namkum, Station Road, Jorar, Post Office and P.S. Namkum, Dist.Ranchi, Jharkhand

2.Dr. Amarendra Prasad, son of late Sri Narayan Prasad Sinha, residing at Priya Health Centre, United Bank Lane, Namkum, Station Road, Jorar, Post Office and Police Station- Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Vinay Rabidas, s/o late Vilas Rabidas, R/o Bhadani Nagar, P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand at present Posted as Clerk in State Insurance Hospital, P.S. Mandu, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand... Opp.Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioners       :-     Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
       For the State             :-     Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
                                        ----

6/15.03.2023        Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

By order dated 11.2.2013, the O.P.no.2 was called upon and

the requisites were filed and pursuant thereto notices were issued,

however, nobody has appeared on behalf of the O.P.No.2. From the

records it is not clear that whether the notices pursuant to the said order

has been served upon the O.P.No.2 or not. However, while deciding the

amendment petition by way of I.A. No.3096 of 2022 by which order

taking cognizance was challenged and was allowed and amended the

O.P.no.2 again directed to be served and accordingly the learned counsel

for the petitioners has filed the requisites and Office note suggest that

the O.P.no.2 has personally received the notice and the said receiving is

kept at Flag-A of the record. Today, when the matter was taken up

nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.no.2 and that is how, this

petition has been heard on merit.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of the

entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mandu(Kujju) P.S. Case No.216

of 2012 dated 16.08.2012 registered for the offence under section 3(x)/4

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 including the order taking cognizance dated 24.2.2020,

pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ramgarh.

The FIR was registered alleging therein that as per the

allegation made by one Binay Rabidas, posted as a Clerk in the

Employees State Insurance Hospital, Ranchi Road, Kuju is that on

11.8.2012 both the petitioners came to the office at 12.30 p.m and they

reached the office by some delay and they always use to come to the

office with delay and used to mark attendance forcefully. It has been

alleged that the petitioners used derogatory words against the

employees, posted in the said Hospital by abusing them and in that

context, they have also used the derogatory words against the informant

namely Binay Rabidas and thus as per the said Act they have committed

an offence and hence the instant FIR has been registered.

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are doctors and at

the relevant time they were posted in the E.S.I. Hospital at Ramgarh. He

submits that the informant was working there in that hospital and due to

certain differences the case has been filed falsely. He submits that

cognizance has been taken by the learned court under section 3(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989. He draws the attention of the Court to the said section and

submits that the occurrence has not taken place in public view which is

one of the essential ingredient for taking cognizance under that section.

He further submits that there is no averment in the FIR that the

petitioners were not belonging to SC/ST and to buttress his such

argument, he relied in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra

Pradesh and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 531. Paragraph no.6 of the said

judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of the their caste. According to the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant accused 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 as 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."

On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the FIR was

registered and pursuant thereto the learned court has taken cognizance

considering the final report. He submits that there is no illegality in the

order taking cognizance.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsels

appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the

materials on record including the contents of the FIR as well as the order

taking cognizance. Looking into the contents of the FIR it is crystal clear

that occurrence has not occurred in public view. As per section 3(1)(x)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 is concerned, it reads as under :

"3.Punishment for offences of atrocities-(1) Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe,-

(i)- (ix) * * *

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in anyplace within public view;"

Looking to the said section it appears that even at all the

allegations as taken in the complaint is true, offence under section

3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out as the occurrence has not occurred

in public view which is one of the ingredient to make out the case under

that section. Further in the contents of the FIR it is not stated that the

petitioners are not belonging to SC/ST category and this aspect of the

matter has been considered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of

Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others(supra). Further

looking to the order taking cognizance it is found that the word

„cognizance‟ has been filled in the blank space which suggest that there

is non-application of judicial mind in order taking cognizance. It is well

settled that criminal motion is not required to be put into action only by

way of bringing on evidence in support of the case as has been held by

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of "Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special

Judicial Magistrate", reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749.