Sidheshwar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2026

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                           2026:JHHC:2794




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W. P. (Cr) No. 719 of 2025
                            -----

Sidheshwar Mandal, S/o Late Jago Mandal, R/o Azad Nagar, near Jail Gate, Jirwabari, PO-Sahibganj, PS-Jirwabari, District-Sahibganj ... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Baleshwar Murmu, S/o Munshi Murmu, R/o Gunduba, PO & PS Nirsa, Dhanbad, at present residing at Junior Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division Office, Jirwabari, PO-Sahibganj, PS-Jirwabari, District-Sahibganj ... .... Respondents

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V For Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate

-----

Oral Order 03 / Dated : 03. 02.2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 16.10.2025 registered as Jirwabari P.S. Case No. 196 of 2025 under Sections 126(2), 308(5), 132, 351(2) & 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Respondent No.2, informant of the case, is the Junior Engineer and the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner on 16.10.2025.

3. As per the FIR three years ago, in Ward No. 28, Municipal Council, Sahibganj, RCC sewerage line was constructed under the supervision of the Informant (respondent no.2) in Sahebganj. Due to flooding, 50 feet of flank wall of the drainage got tilted which was again constructed under the directions of the superior authority. It is alleged that from the time, the construction of the drainage work was initiated on 05.01.2023, this petitioner without any rhyme or reason was making wanton allegation, making extortion demand and used to abuse the informant by calling his caste name. On several occasions, he had threatened him of complaining to the senior officers. A false complaint was made by the Petitioner, in which inquiry had been initiated which was found to be false. Despite this he persisted in his conduct. It is also 2026:JHHC:2794

alleged that false and malicious news was published in the daily newspaper at his instance. The informant is a patient of hypertension and due to harassment by the Petitioner, at times he was even thinking of committing suicide.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences as alleged in the F.I.R will not made out, as it does not state the date, time and place when this petitioner had abused the informant in public view. General allegation has been leveled that since 05.01.2023 he had been harassed, but no particular date, time or place has been mentioned in the entire F.I.R.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had complained to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand vide his letter dated 03.07.2024 with regard to irregularities committed in the construction of guard wall of the sewerage line at a cost of Rs.99,37,080/- which did not withstand a single rainy season and got swept away. Another letter was sent to the Chief Secretary on 04.08.2025 complaining about the quality of construction. In pursuant to his letters, a Nine-Member Committee was constituted to look into the irregularities in the construction of said guard wall as is apparent from the letter of the Director, District Rural Development, Branch Sahebganj dated 09.10.2025. These pleadings are supported by the relevant letters at Annexures-2,3 &4.

6. It is contended that the present case lodged on 16.10.2025, is a counter blast to the inquiry initiated against the informant which will be apparent from the complaint.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S., 2023, but he neither cooperated with investigation nor appeared before the investigating authority.

8. Notice was issued to respondent No.2 (Informant) who appeared through his counsel. It is submitted that the extortionist demand was made and the informant was humiliated in public view which will make out an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since, the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, therefore, investigation has been

2026:JHHC:2794

hampered and his anticipatory bail has been rejected by the learned Sessions Court.

9. Quashing of FIR is an exception and not a Rule. In order to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR, it needs to be only seen whether an offence is made out on the basis of allegations made in the FIR. If the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable for fanciful and it has been lodged wreak vengeance, the power can be exercised in appropriate cases.

10. Matter for consideration before this Court is whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR.

11. In order to make out an offence under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the intended insult should be 'within public view'. It has been held in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710:

"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."

12. In the present case, it has been alleged that this petitioner had been making extortionist demand since last three years when the drainage construction work commenced on 5th January, 2023. It is also alleged that he was making wanton allegations and had also abused the informant by calling his caste name. The date, place and time of such incidence is conspicuous by its absence.

13. The undisputed fact which emerges is that the petitioner had complained to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand much before on 03.07.2024 more than one year before institution of the case with regard to poor quality of construction of the guard wall of the sewage line, later on swept away in flood. In pursuant to his complaint, a Nine-Member Committee was constituted to look into the irregularities and after that the present case was lodged on 16.10.2025. In absence of any detail whether the offence was committed in public

2026:JHHC:2794

or in private, what was actually stated by the petitioner which can be said to be abusing the informant, a prima facie case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not be made out. This is apparently a case lodged to wreak vengeance against the complaint made by the petitioner leading to the constitution of the Enquiry Committee to look into the construction works monitored by the informant which shall be a misuse of judicial process to allow the nature of FIR to run in its full course.

14. Under the circumstance and for the reasons, as discussed above, the First Information Report in Jirwabari P.S. Case No. 196 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 308(5), 132, 351(2) & 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed.

Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra Uploaded 04.02.2026