Jharkhand High Court
Sita Ram Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 774 of 2010
1. Sita Ram Sharma
2. Sandeep Sharma
3. Brajesh Sharma .... ...Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Father Joseph Ekka
..... ...Opp. Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
10/ Dated:-20.03.2023
Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the State and
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
The present petition has been filed for quashing of
entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 09.04.2010
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in
connection with Complaint Case No. 70 of 2010 whereby cognizance
has been taken under section 341, 323, 379, 504 of the I.P.C. and
under section 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Latehar.
The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein
that Pius Kerketta as the convener of the Church who purchased a
piece of land measuring an area of 7.35 acres by registered sale
deeds and surrounded the same by barbed wire but on 28.02.2010
the accused persons along with 10-15 other persons armed with
various weapons stopped the work of boundary and abused the
labourers despite their protest and those accused persons also
alleged to have cut away the wires already affixed causing loss to
the extent of Rs. 6,000/-.
Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that during pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 2 has
left for his heavenly abode and his name was directed to be deleted
vide order dated 02.12.2022 and so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 3
are concerned the entire allegations are false and the petitioners
have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that so far as
ingredient sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 are concerned, that is not made out. He
submits that there is no averment in the petition that the petitioners
are not belonging to the SC/ST Caste as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 herein-below:
"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."
He further submits that I.P.C. sections are also not
made out and in that view of the matter entire criminal proceeding
may be quashed.
On the other hand Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel for
the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken
cognizance and there is no illegality in the cognizance order.
In view of above submission of the learned counsel for
the parties the Court has gone through the contents of complaint
petition as well as cognizance order and finds that in the contents
of complaint petition there is no averment that occurrence has
taken place in public view which is one of the requirement to make
out the case under SC/ST Act. Further, there is no averments in the
complaint petition that the petitioners are not belonging to the
SC/ST caste which is another requirement to make out the case
under SC/ST Act. The case of the petitioners is fully covered with
the Gorige Pentaiah (supra) So far as argument made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that I.P.C. sections are not made
out, he has not satisfied the court. Looking into the contents of
F.I.R. the Court comes to the conclusion that the ingredient of I.P.C.
sections are made out. The learned court has rightly taken
cognizance under the sections of I.P.C.
In view of above facts, the order taking cognizance
dated 09.04.2010 so far under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
Act) is concerned, is set aside. This petition is allowed in part and
disposed of.
It is made clear that cognizance order under the I.P.C.
Sections is kept intact.
This petition stands dispose of. Pending, I.A, if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
