The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1077 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1077 of 2018 Siddharth Kumar Mandal @ Sidharth Chandra Mandal … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand 1. 2. Nandlal Tudu ----- … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Malityar, Advocate ----- 14/27.02.2024 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Malityar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.01.2018 in SC/ST Case No.08/2018 arising out of C.P. Case No.250/2016, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Dhanbad. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that on 10.12.2015 at 06:00 P.M., the complainant along with his family members were sitting in his house. In the meantime, Dhiren Chandra Gope and Siddharth Kumar Mandal (Petitioner) with common intention entered into the house and they abused the complainant filthily taking name of his caste and asked him go away from the house and on making protest, they assaulted the complainant and took away Rs.700/- from his pocket. In the meantime, the villagers assemble there and seeing the crowd, the accused persons fled away. It was further alleged that the land situated in Mouza Nichitpur, Mouza No.37, Khata No.30, Plot Nos. 440 and 445 is in the name of the complainant which was purchased by his grandfather Late Kali Charan in the 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1077 of 2018 year 1955 and its Jamabandi No. is 133 and receipts have also been issued. Total 45 decimals is recorded under Manjhi Khata, but Dhiren Chandra Gope by committing forgery has sold Plot No.440 on 17.10.2012 and Plot No.445 on 13-06-2012 to the petitioner taking it to be under Adivasi Khata. The accused persons and 2-4 other persons had come to the house of the complainant on 10.12.2015 at 06:00 P.M. to give Rs.50,000/- for selling it, but when the complainant refused to receive the money, the accused persons abused the complainant taking the name of his caste, assaulted him and threatened him. It was also alleged that the complainant had complained the matter to Officer-in-charge, Baliapur P.S., but no case was registered. On 11.12.2015, the complainant had submitted written application to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and had submitted its copies to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, Circle Officer, Baliapur, Dhanbad, Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad and Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad. 4. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence is said to be in the house of the complainant and in view of that, no case is made out, so far as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned. He further submits that the allegations are made in the complaint that the plot in question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2013, whereas, the present case has been lodged on 27.01.2016. He also submits that for the land in question, Title Suit No.167/2016 has also been instituted by opposite party no.2. He submits that for a civil wrong, present case has been filed. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. He refers paragraphs 13 and 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1077 of 2018 16 of the said judgment, which read as under: “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. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste. 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 2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 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, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” 5. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Malityar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the allegations are there and in view of that, the criminal proceeding may not be quashed at this stage as that can only be decided in trial. 7. Looking into the contents of the complaint case, it is clear that the occurrence has taken place in the house of the complainant and not in public view. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1077 of 2018 8. Further, the allegations are made with regard to transfer of the land of Plot Nos. 440 and 445 and the land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2013 and, thereafter, mutation was also made and the petitioner is also paying rent and in view of that, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment passed in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra). 9. Further, it has not been disclosed in the complaint that the petitioner is not belonging to the caste of opposite party no.2, which is one of the requirement as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531. 10.
Decision
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.01.2018 in connection with SC/ST Case No.08/2018 arising out of C.P. Case No.250/2016, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Dhanbad are quashed. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)