Cognizance under the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained if the informant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or if the involvement is merely circumstantial related to civil disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.)

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2021, whereby appellants charged for offence u/s 341, 323, 354(B)/34 I.P.C & 3(i)(r)(w)/3(2) (va) SC/ST Act, passed by 1^st Additional District Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhubani in FIR bearing Madhubani Nagar P.S Case No-64/19, GR No.22/2019, which is passed by modifying order taking cognizance dated15.03.2021 passed by 1^st Additional District Judge cum Special Judge, SC/SCT Act, Madhubani in FIR bearing Madhubani Nagar P.S Case No-64/19, GR No.22/2019, by ignoring the findings in the police's final investigation report, regarding no sufÏcient evidence against the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present case was filed with oblique and ulterior motive as to counter the criminal case lodged by appellants and his nephew which was registered as Madhubani (Town) P.S. Case No. 59 of 2019 dated 10.02.2019 and also Madhubani (Town) P.S. Case No. 61 of 2019 dated 11.02.2019, where son of the informant is also an accused. It is submitted that informant is admittedly not the member of Schedule Caste community but by introducing a stranger namely, Anita Devi, who is the member of Schedule Caste community, who said to entered into the occurrence to save the informant and as she received some injuries during the occurrence, the present case was lodged under SC/ST (POA Act), 1989, otherwise there was no occasion to register this case under the provisions of atrocities Act as defined within the meaning of SC/ST (POA Act), 1989. It is submitted that this case was lodged in planned and formulated manner and same can be easily understood as how this case under the provisions of SC/ST (POA Act), 1989 who lodged by introducing a stranger to crime in question.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the medical report of injured informant categorically stated that no “obvious injury” was found upon her, which make entire allegation of assault as alleged against appellants false on its face. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the appellants purchased the land as mentioned under Annexure P/3 series (A,B,C,D) from one Mahant Markendey Das and Gopal Das. It is pointed out that after death of Mahant Markendey Das, Gopal Das started to create troubles qua possession of appellants on said purchased land and in furtherance of same, making informant instrumental, lodged present false case.

5. It is submitted that dispute in issue is purely civil in nature for which civil remedies are available and it has been given a criminal color only to create a legal pressure as to get compromise the land issue out of Court with favorable terms and conditions as set by informant and offences.

6. In support of aforesaid submissions learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cognizance as taken by learned trial court under SC/ST (POA Act), 1989 is bad in eyes of law.

7. In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the legal reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603 and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

8. Submitting further, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that police after investigation submitted final form in this case qua appellants but l