Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Dashrath Jha – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by Sri A. Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, in T.R Case No.578 of 2012, arising out of P.C.R. Case No.283 of 2010, whereby, the prima facie case has been found against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Criminal Revision No.224 of 2012, whereby, the revision filed against the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2012, was dismissed by the Revisional Court.
3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The complaint case was filed by the opposite party No.2 against the accused persons in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur, in which, it is alleged that the accused persons assaulted the complainant and also abused her in the name of her caste. The complainant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R but no action was t
A prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Act, 1989 and there is no provision of leading pre charge evidence before court of Sessions, no illegality....
The court emphasized the necessity for adherence to procedural mandates in criminal proceedings, specifically requiring compliance with Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. before ordering investigation.
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can quash proceedings lacking sufficient evidence or motivated by malice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of incidents taking place in public view and the caste of the accused being of the informant for taking cognizance under the Sch....
Non-compliance with statutory provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, specifically Section 9 read with Rule 7, led to the quashing of cognizance under the Act.
For an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST POA Act, intent to act against a person based on their caste status is essential; mere reference to caste without such intent is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compliance with the provision of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 does not vitiate the entire criminal proceeding, and a complain....
Omission of caste insult in initial police intimation does not vitiate SC/ST (POA) Act proceedings if substantiated later.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
