Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 657 of 2023
Chandra Das, aged about 54 years, wife of late Anup Kumar Das,
resident of Qr. No. 1, Saradamani Girls High School, Compound, Aam
Bagan, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand, presently residing at Flat No. B/3, Sharda Enclave.
Dhalbhum Road, Sakchi, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur,
District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Saraswati Devi, wife of late Tinku Mukhi, resident of Holding No. 11, D.
Block Road no. 12, Bagunhatu, P.O. and P.S. Baridih, Jamshedpur,
District-East Singhbhum ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Victim : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
-----
09/28.10.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State
and learned counsel for the victim.
2. I.A. No. 9615 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 190
days in filing the present criminal appeal.
3. Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that there is delay of 190 days in filing the present criminal appeal,
which is arising under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the appellant had earlier preferred
Cr.M.P. No. 1849 of 2023 challenging the order taking cognizance, however,
the said Cr.M.P. was dismissed as withdrawn by the Coordinate Bench vide
order dated 16.08.2023 with liberty to file criminal appeal under section 14-
A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 as there is provision of appeal. He submits that thereafter the present
criminal appeal has been preferred and in view of that, such delay has
occurred. He further submits that proviso of Section 14-A has been struck
down by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine All 975 and in this background, the delay may kindly
be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the delay is there,
however, he is not disputing that the appellant had earlier moved before this
Court in the said Cr.M.P., which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
file criminal appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He is further not
disputing with regard to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant that the provision of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been struck down
by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
5. Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel for Victim opposed the
prayer of condonation and he submits that the appellant has wrongly filed
the said Cr.M.P., which was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground of
maintainability. He further submits that so far as the Full Bench judgment of
the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is concerned, that is being examined by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which, notice has been issued even on the stay
matter. On these grounds, he submits that the delay may not be condoned
and the limitation petition may kindly be rejected.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that it is an
admitted position that the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has
struck down the proviso of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Ghulam Rasool
Khan (supra). It was pointed out by the learned counsel for Victim that the
stay petition is being examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and notice has
been issued. It is admitted position that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not
stayed the order of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as yet
and only notice has been issued.
7. The High Court is required to decide the case on the existing law even
if the matter is referred to the larger Bench, as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of India and others v.
Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and others, reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140. Till the order of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court is reversed, that order is existing today.
8. It is further well settled that the order of any Full Bench of any
constitutional Court is binding upon other High Courts, as has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi
Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 2 SCC
673. Thus, the objection of the learned counsel for respondent no.2 with
regard to dismissal of the limitation petition is not being accepted by this
Court.
9. It is also an admitted position that the appellant had earlier moved
before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1849 of 2023, which was dismissed as
withdrawn on 16.08.2024 with liberty to file criminal appeal under section
Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
10. It is further well known that if a wrong forum is chosen by any of the
party, the period of that can be condoned and no litigant can be deprived of
remedyless. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
v. Union of India and another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254. Paragraph
22 of the said judgment reads as under:
"22. The Court must have the requisite territorial
jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning the
constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or
final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2)
of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect
throughout the territory of India subject of course to the
applicability of the Act."
11. In view of the above background, this Court finds that sufficient cause
is made out to condone the delay and, as such, the delay of 190 days in filing
the present criminal appeal is, hereby, condoned.
12. Accordingly, I.A. No.9615 of 2024 is disposed of.
13. Let this appeal be placed after Deepawali vacation.
14. Office will proceed further as per the procedure.
15. It is open to the learned counsel for Victim to come prepare on the
merits of the case.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
