The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2327 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2327 of 2016 Manoj Das … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Rabi Murmu … Opposite Parties -----
Legal Reasoning
an elaborate order, this issue has been decided by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.371 of 2023 with W.P.(Cr.) No.327 of 2023 with W.P.(Cr.) No.393 of 2023, vide order dated 07.11.2023. Considering the nature of allegations made in the petition, it appears that maliciously the present case has been filed and in view of that, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the State is not being accepted by this Court. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2327 of 2016 9. The Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the FIR. In the FIR, there are allegations of cutting the tree over the said plot. Annexure-2 is the Power of Attorney executed by one Amita Dadel in favour of the informant, namely, Rabi Murmu. The informant has sold the land to the petitioner by sale deed, contained in Annexure-3. Thus, it is crystal clear that for the civil dispute, if any, present FIR has been lodged. 10. Further in the contents of the FIR, there is no averment with regard to the caste of the petitioner, which is essential in view of two judgments, relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra). 11. It appears that maliciously the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. 12.
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 ----- : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. : None ----- 07/20.12.2023 Although opposite party no.2 has appeared through the learned counsel by way of filing Vakalatnama, however, on repeated calls nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Identical was the situation on 07.11.2023 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2, the matter was adjourned on that day. Today again on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 2. Accordingly, this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2. 3. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the FIR being Mihijam P.S. Case No.77/16, corresponding to G.R. Case No.730/16, registered under Sections 323/341/379/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(iv) and 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara. During pendency of the case, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance vide order dated 11.12.2019 and by way of filing I.A. No.8801 of 2023, the said cognizance order prayed 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2327 of 2016 to be challenged, which was allowed vide order dated 07.11.2023. Thus, the order taking cognizance dated 11.12.2019 is also under challenge in this petition. 5. The FIR was registered alleging therein that opposite party no.2 has got a land in which there was several trees such as Neem, Sagwan which he himself has planted. It was alleged that the dispute was going on between the informant and the present petitioner over the same land and even litigation with regard to the said land is pending before both the persons. It was further alleged that on 20.08.2016 at about 08:30, the present petitioner along with one unknown person to whom he claimed to identify was cutting the said Neem and when the informant came to know this fact, then he went to the place of occurrence and requested the petitioner not to cut the said tree, then the petitioner started hurling the abuses against the informant and also started saying that the informant is a Adivasi and belongs to lower caste and he pushed the informant. It was also alleged that the petitioner has also abused by taking the caste name and has also stated to be Harijan Adivasi and it was stated that he will immediately kill him and bury him in the said land. It was further alleged that when the petitioner started hurling away then he fled away from the place of occurrence and thereafter lodged the FIR. 6. Mr. Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegation mentioned in the FIR is false. He submits that the allegations are made with regard to one of transaction with regard to the said plot. He further submits that the said land belongs to one Amita Dadel, widow of Nainsukh Dadel, resident of Mihijam, District- Jamtara and she has given Power of Attorney firstly to Rabi Murmu-informant for selling the said land 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2327 of 2016 on 07.10.2013, contained in Annexure-2 and, thereafter, the informant sold the land to the present petitioner on 19.01.2014 by way of registered sale deed, contained in Annexure-3. He submits that the informant, who happened to be land broker, was demanding more money and only for that purpose, the present case has been lodged. He further submits that the petitioner himself is a Scheduled Caste and there is no averment in the FIR with regard to the caste of the present petitioner. He submits that averment is necessary, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 and it has been recently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 469. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 7. Ms. Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that this petition is not maintainable and remedy is there under Section 14-A of the said Act and in view of that, this petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. In a case arising out of the same nature, if a case is maliciously filed and ingredients are not there, the Court can entertain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By
Decision
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR being Mihijam P.S. Case No.77/16, corresponding to G.R. Case No.730/16 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 11.12.2019, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara are quashed. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)