JUDGMENT :

1. This matter was referred by way of referring by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the Division Bench in view of ‘Bomshankar Jha @ Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.’ reported in (2016) 1 JBCJ 223 (HC) and Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2017) 1 JLJR 291 as the different view taken by the learned Single Judge and that is why this has been referred to the Division Bench for reference as to which of the judgment is the correct law by this Court. Accordingly, the Division Bench has answered the reference holding that ‘Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr.’ reported in (2017) 1 JLJR 291 is a good law and thereafter this matter has been mentioned before the Court and it has been heard earlier and thereafter it has come.

2. Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Pravin Kumar Appu, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Ram Chandra Sahu, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge CBI, Dhanbad in C.P.Case No.3238 of 2016 whereby the learned court has taken cognizance for the offence under section 3(1)G) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 has been taken against the petitioners.

4. The case was instituted by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that the instant case has been instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by one Sita Devi in which she has stated that she is member of santhal commuity and used to reside at Kumahartoli Karmatanr. She claimed that her father in law Mangal Manjhi had received a land from Hema Kumari through deed no.8606, dated 8.11.1946 in Mauza Karmatanr Dhanga Lane No.15 Khewat no.2, Khata no.84, plot no.680/2261 measuring an area of 17 decimals from total land, i.e, 7.01 acres in course of division between Kumhars and Santhal. Mangal Manjhi had constructed a house on the said land and after his death complainant came into possession over the house and land and when the said demolished she shifted to Kumhartoli with his family. On 20.10.2016 at about 12 hours when she went on the land and saw that accused persons were digging trench for foundation of the house by labours and Raju Modak is running a chowmin shop in that very land and he dispossess the complaint and his family members. Informant called her husband and son then accused persons abused them by taking caste name. They also assaulted them and forced them to leave the place. Complainant went to the police station but no action was taken then on 25.11.2016 she had given a written application to Deputy Superintendent of Dhanbad.

5. Mr. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cognizance order is not a speaking order and the prima facie materials have not been discussed in the cognizance order. He further submits that the case is arising out of a land dispute and the petitioners have purchased the land in question vide Annexure-2 and the O.P.no.2 has also claimed the land in question. He further submits that for that land earlier a proceeding under section 144 Cr.PC was initiated and the police report was called for wherein the police has reported that these petitioners were residing in the said land by way of constructing the house since a long period and thereafter 144 proceeding was closed and thereafter complaint case has been filed. He submits that the case is purely of civil in nature and for land dispute cognizance has been taken under section 3(1)G) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. He relied in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710. Paragraph nos. 7, 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

“15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant t