SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Deo Prakash - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No.4294 of 2022
Decided On : 21-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P., Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D. K. Prasad, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Legitimate prosecution should not be quashed at an early stage, and allegations, if proven, should be considered for their legal implications.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code, Sections 323, 354 (B), 379; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 (1) (f), 3 (1) (d) (f)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Forest Guard, sought to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against him for alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations included abusing, insulting, and intimidating a member of a scheduled caste, and committing offenses against her modesty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations, if true, were sufficient to establish the offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It also noted that the case was different from precedent cases and that the legitimate prosecution should not be quashed at this stage.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the allegations, the applicability of the legal provisions, and the request to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations, if proven, constituted offenses under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It also emphasized that a legitimate prosecution should not be quashed at this stage.

Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's prayer to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings, stating that it was not a fit case for such action.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.09.2022 along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.24 of 2022 registered under Section 323, 354 (B), 379 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 (1) (f), 3 (1) (d) (f) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST), Chatra.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 11.07.2022 when the complainant was cleaning the verandah in the courtyard of her house, the petitioner abused her with filthy language, intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant and her husband to humiliate them for being members of scheduled castes; in a place within the public view and abused the complainant and her husband by their caste name in a place within the public view and used criminal force to disrobe the complainant, tore her blouse, made her half-naked and thus outraged her modesty. The complainant filed complaint in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Chatra which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. of this case has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Forest Guard and he has made a complaint against the husband of the complainant as well as he is a witness in the said complaint case and this F.I.R. is a counter-blast to the said complaint case. It is next submitted that another complaint has also been instituted on the basis of the information given by the petitioner on 14.07.2022 as well against the husband of the complainant; for the husband of the complainant having razed the trees over the forest land illegally. It is next submitted that though the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but still the F.I.R. has been registered for the said offence. It is next submitted that the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (f), 3 (1) (d) (f) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out on the basis of the allegations and the complaint is a frivolous and vexatious one. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Venkateswaran & Others vs. P. Bakthavatchalam reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 14 and submits that therein in the facts of that case it appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the criminal prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court and also the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the real dispute between the parties was a private dispute going on between the parties with respect to the illegal construction and there was no allegation that the complainant of that case obstructed and/ or interfered with enjoyment of his right on his property deliberately and willfully knowing that the complainant belongs to SC/ST and in that case a civil dispute was converted into a criminal dispute. In the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed and set aside the criminal proceeding concerned. It is then submitted that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the case of B. Venkateswaran & Others vs. P. Bakthavatchalam (supra), hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. dated 18.09.2022 along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.24 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST), Chatra be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer to quash

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top