The central legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of the SC/ST Act provisions and the court's authority to quash the order taking cognizance in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Instant petition has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 06.02.2020 by Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII cum Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST Case No.89 of 2018 arising out of Tatisilway P.S. Case No.44 of 2017 under Section 3(i)(r) of SC/ST Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant (opposite party No.2) called the informant by her caste name and also attempted to outrage her modesty and abused her.

3. Initially the First Information Report had been instituted by opposite party No.2-Shakuntala Devi on 03.06.2017 for offence being Tatisilway P.S. Case No.44 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.263 of 2017 for the offence under Section 354A/509 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(i)(x)/3(i)(s) of SC/ST Act.

4. Police, on investigation, found the case not true and submitted final form vide final report No.23 of 2018 on 30.03.2018. The protest-cum-complaint case was filed on 19.07.2018 and after recording the statement of O.P. No.2, the impugned order has been passed taking cognizance and process has been directed to be issued against the petitioner.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is power of attorney holder of land owner measuring area 65.42 acres of Khata No.235 situated in Village Silway. The revenue was being paid to the State Government by Gouri Shankar Beed and Rajib Shankar Beed, who executed power of attorney in favour of this petitioner on 22.03.2010 and 14.01.2010.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that present case has been filed on the behest of one Saruf Khan, who claims the land on the basis agreement of sale executed by the land owner on 19.09.2006/20.09.2006, for which suit for specific performance of contract has been filed by Saruf Khan against Gouri Shankar Beed and Rajib Shankar Beed being Title Suit No.454 of 2014.

7. This petitioner has no dispute whatsoever with the local villagers who do not have any right, title and interest over the suit property but they have been set-up Saruf Khan to file the preset suit. It is submitted that even the written report, earlier lodged was in the handwriting of Saruf Khan. When this petitioner had gone to start work over the land in question, this informant and others had raised certain objections which was settled by a compromise between both sides duly signed, copy of which has been annexed herewith from which it will be evident that Rs.2,20,000/- has been paid to them. The instant case is nothing but ploy to extort money from the petitioner and dispossess him from the land over which he has bonafide right, title and possession. Earlier proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. were also initiated being Misc. Case No.918 of 2015 by S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi in which this petitioner was the second party. In that case, after due enquiry, prohibitory order was made absolute against first party in favour of this petitioner. This informant/complainant earlier had served legal notice on the land owners claiming on 27.11.2014 to claim adverse possession of the said land. Against the above facts and circumstance, it is submitted that this case has been filed which will be abuse of process of this Court to prosecute the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No.2 submits that in view of fact that the cognizance has been taken by the learned Court below under Section 3(i)(r) of SC/ST Act therefore, present petition is not maintainable in view of the Section 14(i) of the SC & ST Act. It is further submitted that the plea that Saruf Khan had set-up this informant to file the present case, cannot be tested at this stage and only after trial, it can be said whether he have been set up or the case was genuine. The agreement was executed in the year 2011 but the present case has been filed in 2017 after lapse of more than six years. With regard to proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. i.e. ex parte order where complainant had no opportu