IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Munna Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 773 of 2013
Decided on : 15-03-2023
Cognizance - Quashing of F.I.R. - Allegations under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and IPC - Summary: The court considered the validity of the F.I.R. alleging offenses under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of the F.I.R. on the grounds of false allegations and lack of evidence to support the charges. The court found that the allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) were not supported by the requirement that the accused were not belonging to the SC/ST caste, as per the interpretation in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. However, the court upheld the cognizance under the IPC sections based on the contents of the F.I.R.
Fact of the Case:
Allegations of false implication in F.I.R. under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and IPC
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order taking cognizance under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and allowed the petition in part, disposing of the case. The cognizance order under the IPC sections was kept intact.
Issues: Validity of F.I.R. allegations under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and IPC
Ratio Decidendi: Allegations under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) not supported by the requirement that the accused were not belonging to the SC/ST caste, as per the interpretation in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Cognizance upheld under the IPC sections based on the contents of the F.I.R.
Final Decision: Order taking cognizance under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) set aside. The petition allowed in part and disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Inspite of valid service of notice, O.P. No. 2 has not appeared that is why the matter is being heard on merit.
2. Heard Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. (ST)SC) Case No. 268 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1086 of 2009 for the offence registered under sections 447, 341, 323, 307, 289, 505(2) of the I.P.C. and under section 3(v) (x) (xi)/3 (2-v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). By order dated 21.02.2023 I.A. No. 9053 of 2022 filed for amendment was allowed and thus order taking cognizance dated 29.07.2022 is also under challenge.
3. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that on 22.07.2009 the informant along with his wife was ploughing his field where Munna Singh and Ravi Singh armed with pistol, Lalu Singh armed with tangi and Uday Singh armed with lathi came to his field and abused them, asked them to flee away. When the informant and his wife told them that land belong to them and how they leave land, at that time several persons assembled there and the accused persons abused them by saying sala chamar siyar and also threatened them not to come over the land failing which they would kill them. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the informant told them as to why they are making insult in presence of persons, they became angry and assaulted them by feet and also assaulted the oxen by lathi. It has further been alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons also told by showing pistol that they will kill them by all the bullets. It was further alleged that the accused Lalu Singh and Uday Singh had told to kill Chamra sala and there after they also pressed their neck.
4. Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations are false and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that so far as ingredient of under section 3(v) (x) (xi)/3 (2-v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) is concerned, that is not made out. He submits that there is no averment in the petition that the petitioners are not belonging to the SC/ST Caste as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others”, (2008) 12 SCC 531. Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:
5. He further submits that I.P.C. sections are also not made out and in that view of the matter entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.
6. On the other hand Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and there is not illegality in the cognizance order. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. as well as cognizance order and finds that in the contents of F.I.R. there is no averment that the petitioners are not belonging to the SC/ST caste whic
Validity of allegations under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and IPC based on the requirement that the accused were not belonging to the SC/ST caste and the contents of the F.I.R.
The informant’s classification under SC/ST Act was invalidated based on recent judicial decisions.
The judgment established the importance of meeting the key parameters for registering a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and highlighted the interpretation of 'place within ....
Filing of FIR after the limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. invalidates proceedings; allegations must demonstrate intent to humiliate based on SC/ST status to constitute an offence under t....
Legitimate prosecution should not be quashed at an early stage, and allegations, if proven, should be considered for their legal implications.
An FIR cannot be used as an instrument to intimidate or harass, and must have essential ingredients of the alleged offences to be valid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.