Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lakha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 372/2022
1. Lakha Ram S/o Bhabuta Ji, Aged About 58 Years, B/c
Choudhary R/o Bairath Bagara Jalore
2. Kanti Lal S/o Lakharam Choudhary, Aged About 37 Years,
B/c Choudhary R/o Bairath Bagara Jalore
3. Teja Ram S/o Vardaji, Aged About 54 Years, B/c
Choudhary R/o Bairath Bagara Jalore
4. Naga Ram S/o Samarathji, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
Choudhary R/o Bairath Bagara Jalore
5. Sanwla Ram S/o Samrathji, Aged About 35 Years, B/c
Choudhary R/o Bairath Bagara Jalore
6. Gopa Ram @ Geba Ram S/o Dalaji, Aged About 33 Years,
B/c Choudhary R/o Bairath Bagara Jalore
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bharatraj Meena S/o Devi Lal Meena, R/o Bairath Bagara
Jalore
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
Mr. Kanti Lal Thakur
Mr. Mool Singh Panwar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on : 25/07/2022
Pronounced on : 26/07/2022
The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under
Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the
order dated 04.12.2021 whereby cognizance has been taken
against the accused under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and Sections
3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:21:23 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-372/2022]
Counsel for the appellant submits that the police filed a
closure-report earlier and later the dispute was between the
Panchayat and present appellants for removal of encroachment
which has been given colour of SC/ST Act.
Counsel for the appellant has referred to judgment of
Hon`ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of
Uttarakhand & Anr., [Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020 (Arising
out of SLP (Criminal) No.3585 of 2020) dated 05.11.2020].
Relevant portion whereof reads as follows :-
"16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is
the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per
Respondent No. 2 herself. Due to dispute, Appellant and others
were not permitting Respondent No. 2 to cultivate the land for
the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of
property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on
account of possession of the said property would not disclose an
offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or
harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on
the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste
unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs
to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over
possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is
against a person who claims title over the property. If such
person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence Under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions
of the Amending Act (Central Act No. 27 of 2018), this Court in
a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
and Ors. held that proceedings can be quashed Under Section
482 of the Code. It was held as under:
(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:21:23 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-372/2022]
12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power Under
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the
cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as
already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal
position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been
raised."
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the
respondents opposed the submissions.
The precedent law does not apply in the present factual
matrix.
This Court is of the opinion that at the stage of cognizance,
particularly, when statements make out prima facie case under
Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act no interference is made for.
The appeal is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
113-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
