SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

R.R.PRASAD
Kumar Jitendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: None.
For the State:Mr. S.S. Prasad, Advocate.
For the O.P. No.2:Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

R.R. Prasad, J.—Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Sector-IV B.S. City, P.S. Case No. 121 of 2000 registered under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner.

3. It does appear that complainant/opposite parry No. 2 lodged a complaint case stating therein that he had joined the service of Bharat Refractories Ltd., Bokaro as Assistant Manager (Marketing and Services). Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Marketing and Services) but unfortunately since he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community, he was discriminated in the matter of promotion and was not promoted to the post of Manager (Marketing and Services) in the year 1997. Thereupon, he wrote a letter to the Chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi on 16.1.1999 requesting therein for redressal of his grievance.

4. It has further been alleged that on 9.11.2000, the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top