Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Giri @ Ranjeet Kumar Giri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2013
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2013
Ranjeet Giri @ Ranjeet Kumar Giri ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anita Oraon ... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
Sushil Kumar Singh @ Munna Singh ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Rekha Kumari ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-1157/2013)
Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-354/2014)
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-1157/2013)
Ms. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-354/2014)
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rishi Chandan, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-1157/2013)
-----
10/01.05.2023 Cr.M.P. No.1157 of 2013
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K.
Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rishi Chandan, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated
01.04.2013 and 17.04.2013, whereby non-bailable warrant and process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the
petitioner. The prayer is also made for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Senha P.S. Case No.19/2013, G.R.
No.106/2013, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga.
3. The FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that
the petitioner used filthy language insulting her in the name of the caste as
she is an Adivasi Lady Mukhia. It was further alleged that he was
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
pressurizing to take contract work of Nali and Culvert in front of Panchayat
Bhawan. It was also alleged that the work of Morram in the road connecting
Kalhepat to cremation place of Hindu without any sanction order and when
it was prohibited, he used filthy language to her on 02.02.2013.
4. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
ingredient of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and in spite of that the case has been registered. He
submits that in view of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the investigation to the allegation can
be done only by the person having his past experience, sense of ability and
justice to perceive the implications of the case. He further submits that the
notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. He also submits
that the ingredient of Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. He
also submits that nothing has happened in public view, which is one of the
parameter to take cognizance under that section. On these grounds, he
submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.
5. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that charge-
sheet has already been submitted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the there is allegation
of threatening and for that the case under Section 504 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out.
6. Mr. Chandan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
ingredient is there and charge-sheet has been submitted against the
petitioner and this Court may not interfere with this petition, at this stage.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that
in the complaint there is no allegation that the said incident took place in
public view. Further, it is not disclosed that the petitioner is not of the caste
of the informant and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is
fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & ors.; [2008 (12) SCC 53] .
However, the Court finds that there is allegation of threatening and in that
view of the matter, Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
8. So far as the submission of Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner with regard to the notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995 is concerned, it is a disputed question of fact and the learned counsel
has not been able to demonstrate how the persons who are asked to
investigate the matter, are not competent persons. Moreover, the said
notification is not under challenge in this petition. In that view of the matter,
the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted.
9. In view of the above facts, Section 3(1)(viii)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not
made out and that part of the FIR is set aside. So far as Section 504 of the
Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Court has not interfered as there is
allegation of threatening and charge-sheet has been submitted under
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and for that the
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
case is kept intact. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, this petition (Cr.M.P. No.1157 of 2013) is allowed in part
and disposed of.
11. Pending I.As, if any, are disposed of.
12. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
Cr.M.P. No.354 of 2014
13. Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.
14. Although appearance has been made on behalf of opposite party
no.2, however on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of
opposite party no.2 and that is why in absence of opposite party no.2, this
matter is being heard on merit.
15. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding
as well as the order dated 21.11.2013 passed in Kotwali (S) P.S. Case
No.669 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.4032 of 2013, pending in
the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
16. The FIR was registered on the basis of written report of opposite
party no.2 alleging therein that the petitioner and others had entered into
her house and had assaulted her due to which she had become unconscious
for some time. They had also abused her and had used ugly words relating
to her caste. On 25.07.2013 at about 02:00 P.M., the petitioner came to her
house and started abusing her and he also threatened with dire
consequences if she did not withdraw the case. The informant's two
daughters came out of the house and recorded the abuses hurled by the
petitioner in their mobile phone.
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
17. Mr. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of
Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the investigation to the allegation can be done only
by the person having his past experience, sense of ability and justice to
perceive the implications of the case. He submits that the notification
brought on record is not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. He further
submits that the ingredient of Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out,
however the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He
also submits that nothing has happened in public view, which is one of the
parameter to take cognizance under that section. He draws attention of the
Court to the final form, submitted by the police and submits that the police
has recorded that the caste's name was not taken. On these grounds, he
submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.
18. On the other hand, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State
has come forward with the notification whereby all the Sub-Inspectors have
been delegated power to investigate the case under the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. She submits that
there are allegations of threatening and that is why, Sections 504 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code are made out.
19. In view of aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the
order taking cognizance and finds that in the entire complaint, it is not
disclosed that the accident took place in public view, which is one of the
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
ingredient to take cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court further finds that in
the said complaint, it has also not been disclosed that the petitioner was not
belonging to the case of the informant, which is one of the ingredient for
taking cognizance under the said Act and in this regard, a reference may be
made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige
Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & ors.; [2008 (12) SCC 53] . However, the
Court finds that there are allegations of threatening and in that view of the
matter, Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are made out.
20. So far as the submission of Mr. Dayal, learned counsel for the
petitioner with regard to the notification is not in consonance with Rule 7 of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995 is concerned, it is a disputed question of fact and the learned
counsel has not been able to demonstrate how the persons who are
asked to investigate the matter, are not competent persons. Moreover, the
said notification is not under challenge in this petition. In that view of the
matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
accepted.
21. In view of the above facts, the order taking cognizance dated
21.11.2013 passed in Kotwali (S) P.S. Case No.669 of 2013, corresponding
to G.R. Case No.4032 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi with regard to Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set
aside. The Court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance dated
21.11.2013 so far as cognizance under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian
With
Cr.M.P. No. 354 of 2014
Penal Code are concerned and for that the case is kept intact. The learned
court shall proceed in accordance with law.
22. Accordingly, this petition (Cr.M.P. No.354 of 2014) is allowed in part
and disposed of.
23. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
