Property disputes involving vulnerable sections of society do not necessarily constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless the allegations are based on the victim's caste.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.06.2012 passed in the Complaint Case No.1406 of 2011 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi, and pending in that court.

2. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that the complainant who is the scheduled tribe person has gone to his plot no.28 of Khata No.74 situated in village Kamre. The accused persons/petitioners gathered there and abused the complainant and warned him not to come on these plots otherwise they will assault him and burry in the same land. The complainant further alleged that the land bearing Khata No.74 having 4 acre and 17 decimal has been restored under SAR Case No.898/0506 but the same has been again occupied by the accused persons just after giving the possession by the court. That after enquiry the cognizance has been taken by the court below.

3. Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only the tenant of O.P.No.3 and unnecessarily the petitioners have been dragged in this criminal case. He further submits that sub section (v) of section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, speaks of cultivating land allowed to the scheduled castes and wherein the allegations against these petitioners are not with regard to that. He further submits that in the SAR case the learned court has held that the petitioners are raiyat of their land.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Laxman Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.3 has appeared and the O.P.No.3 has filed the counter affidavit wherein he has disclosed that these petitioners are the tenants of O.P.no.3. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and this Court may not interfere at this stage under section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order.

6. The Court has perused the materials on record. In one of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate under section 144 Cr.P.C wherein it has been disclosed that there is an old land dispute in between the O.P.No.2 and 3 where O.P.No.3 is landlord of the land pertaining to Khata No.74 Plot No.28 measuring an area of 4 acres 70 decimals, recorded in the name of Chhota Sukher Munda in the Khatiyan the ancestor of O.P.no.3. The dispute has been raised by O.P.No.2 way back in 1993. In initial proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C started further converted into under section 145 Cr.P.C wherein details has recorded transfer of the land, order has been passed in favour of the O.P.No.3 and it has been suggested by the learned court of SDO to Opp.Party no.2 to approach the competent civil court.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the O.P.No.3 wherein it has been disclosed that the petitioners are the tenants of O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.3 has disclosed in the counter affidavit that O.P.no.2 after concealing the fact has obtained order from the SAR court in Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the O.P.no.3 has approached the competent civil court by filing title suit bearing Title Suit No.336 of 2011 which is presently pending in the court of Civil Judge First Class Ranchi wherein O.P.No.2 is one of the defendants.

8. It appears that the matter is civil in nature and for that criminality has been shown in the complaint and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners although the complaint was filed under various sections of IPC as well as under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The learned court has taken cognizance only under the SC/ST Act and not under any section of IPC. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, paragraph no.12, 13, 14, 18 and 22 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

“12. The basic ingredients of the offence under