Pradip Kumar Turi v. The State of Jharkhand

Judgment

1. 2. Wajid Ansari, son of Jan Ali Ansari. 3. Md. Wasif @Md. Asif Ansari @ Mintun Ansari, son of Jan Ali Ansari. 4. Ahsanullah Ansari, son of Late Abdul Rab Ansari. 5. Sagar Jamil Ansari @Jamil Ansari, son of Ahsanullah Ansari. 6. Alam Ansari @ Afzal Alam Ansari, son of Abdul Mannan Ansari. 7. Kaisar Bhakhat Ansari @ Kausar Ansari, son of Abdul Mannan Ansari.

8. Md. Washim Asgar, son of Late Asgar Ali Ansari. 9. Amin Asgar, son of Late Asgar Ali Ansari. 10. Md. Jakib Ullah Ansari, @ Md Jakilullah@Jakilullah Ansari @ Jaki, son of AsamatullahAnsari @ Aliullah. 11. Matin Asgar Ansari, son of Asgar Ali Ansari. 12. Md. Talat Hussain Ansari @ Talat Ansari, son of Late Taiyab Hussain. 13. Faizan Ali @ Khwaja Ansari, son of Fakruddin Ansari. All are residents of village Muslim Tola, Mahuda Basti, P.O. Mahuda, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR … … Respondents ------- For the Appellant For the State ------ : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Savita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Ram Chander Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Viswanath Roy, Spl. PP -------- Order No. 08 / Dated 19th February, 2025 IA No.12524 of 2024

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 14(A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, for condoning the delay of 186 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the rulings of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of “Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.” reported in (2022) 7 ILR A167 wherein para 17 read as under:- “17. In view of our aforesaid discussions, the answers to the questions referred are as under :- (i) Question No.(I) is answered in negative as Rohit Vs State of U.P. and another, (2017) 6 ALJ 754 has been overruled by Full Bench of this Court in In Re : Provision of section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, (2018) 6 ALJ 631. (ii) Question No.(II) is answered in negative holding that an aggrieved person will not have two remedies namely, i.e. filing an appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act as well as filing a bail application in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C. (iii) Question No.(III) is answered in negative holding that the aggrieved person having remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (iv) Question No.(IV) - There will be no limitation to file an appeal against an order under the provisions of 1989 Act. Hence, the remedies can be availed of as provided.”

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application and the rulings relied upon by the Learned counsel for the appellant and having no objection on the part of the learned APP, the delay of 186 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

5. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 12524 of 2024 stands allowed. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 95 of 2024

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that this appeal has been preferred against the order dated

16.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.1130 of 2023 arising out of Mahuda P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhanbad without taking cognizance of offence has remitted the matter to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad for trial and disposal along with the entire case record when the charge-sheet was submitted by the police under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 427, 504 & 2 Cr.A(SJ) No.95 of 2024 506 of the IPC, although, the case was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 448, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the accused persons where the appellant was informant.

8. It has been pointed out that the criminal proceeding was initiated inter alia for the offences under SC/ST Act and also after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted under IPC only and not under SC/ST Act but still it was an obligation on the part of the concerned Special Court to take the cognizance after appreciating the evidences collected during the course of the investigation and after taking cognizance, he should have passed appropriate order but without application of judicial mind, blindly, the learned Special Court has transferred the case to the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class because the Charge-sheet was not submitted under SC/ST Act which is fit to be set aside.

9. Further it has also been submitted that since the entire case record has been submitted before the concerned Court of learned Magistrate where charge has been framed and further proceeding of the case has commenced and therefore, in the interest of justice, the appellant must be given opportunity as per the provisions of Section 362 of the BNSS, 2023 to take appropriate steps.

10. The learned APP pointing out that since the proceeding has already commenced and therefore, he has got the right to redress all his grievances under Section 362 of the BNSS and therefore, a liberty may be given for the ends of justice to the appellant.

11. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Criminal Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to the appellant to raise all the points as per the provisions of law.

12. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is disposed of. Basant/S. Das (Navneet Kumar, J.) 3 Cr.A(SJ) No.95 of 2024