IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty, criminal breach of trust and cheating – Order of Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order.

JUDGMENT :

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against the Final Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) [2022:JHHC:9512] in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.235 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) by which the High Court set aside the cognizance Order dated 13.06.2019 passed in connection with SC/ST Case No.08 of 2017 arising out of Argora P.S. Case No.385 of 2016, by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Additional Judicial Commissioner’) and remitted the matter for passing order afresh.

BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Respondent No.2 (Informant) claims to be the second wife of one Vishnu Sahu (Deceased). Appellant No.1 is the first wife of Late Vishnu Sahu, and Appellants No.2 and 3 are their children. It was alleged that the deceased posing himself as unmarried about 25-30 years ago befriended Respondent No.2 and married her in 1990 at Jagannath Temple under Hindu customs and traditions and lived peacefully for more than 26 years. From their marriage (Vishnu Sahu and Respondent No.2), three children were born, namely Reshma Kumari, Rupa Kumari, and Vishal Kumar. It was pleaded that after 26 years, Respondent No.2 filed a written complaint against Vishnu Sahu and the Appellants which culminated into First Information Report No.385/2016 dated 27.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’) under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(iv) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’).

3. The allegations made in the FIR are that Vishnu Sahu posing himself to be unmarried, performed marriage with Respondent No.2 in 1990, and two daughters and a son were born to them from the said wedlock. By taking a loan in her name from a bank and at her expense, a pakka house was constructed upon the land purchased by her father in her name, and she was living in the said house with her family. She also alleged that Vishnu Sahu along with the first wife and the children, born from wedlock of Vishnu Sahu and his first wife (Appellant No.1) started to harass and assault her and ultimately, in the year 2013, she and her children were ousted by them from the said house. It is further alleged that she has been deprived of her land and house, that she is facing hardship, her daughters are of marriageable age and that she was humiliated and abused by Vishnu Sahu, his first wife (Appellant No.1) and their children in the name of Adivasi Kol. Bhurung, etc.

4. Vishnu Sahu and the Appellants moved Anticipatory Bail Petition No.1799 of 2016 before the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1 at Ranchi, who on 19.12.2016 passed an Order directing that no coercive steps shall be taken against them and adjourned the matter with direction to put up on 20.01.2017. On 20.01.2017, an Order was passed rejecting the application for anticipatory bail as the allegation illustrates commission of offence(s) under the SC/ST Act.

5. The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance against Vishnu Sahu and Appellants on 13.06.2019 in SC/ST Case No.08/2017. Though before the High Court, the Appellants had initially sought quashing of the FIR, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.235/2017 the prayer was later amended by filing an Interlocutory Application challenging the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019. The High Court in the Impugned Judgment, instead of going into the question of whether the FIR itself was fit to be quashed, focused only on the cognizance-taking Order dated 13.06.2019. Even before this Court, the Appellants challenged the Impugned Judgment to the extent the matter was remanded to pass order afresh after disclosure of the prima facie material against the Appellants. No prayer w