The court ruled that allegations under the SC/ST Act must demonstrate intent to humiliate based on caste, and the second proviso of Section 14-A(3) was struck down as unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

Notice was issued upon respondent no.2 vide order dated 31.07.2024. Service report is on the record, which suggests that respondent no.2 has left for his heavenly abode.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he has not been able to find out whether any substitution is made before the learned Court, where the matter is pending or not.

3. In view of the above, this appeal is being heard in absence of respondent no.2.

4. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State.

5. The present criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamtara in SC/ST Case No.12 of 2021, whereby, he has been pleased to take cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellants, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Jamtara.

6. Office objection is made with regard to maintainability of this appeal as it has been filed after lapse of 180 days in light of Section 14-A (3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that if a cogent reason is made, for the ends of justice this Court is competent to entertain the present criminal appeal. He submits that so far as Section 14-A (3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, that has already been struck down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 975. He then submits that there is land dispute and for that, the case has been falsely lodged in the complaint form and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under the Indian Penal Code sections as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections. He submits that in view of that, this appeal may kindly be decided on merit. He submits that the appellants are having good case of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 18.04.2022. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra) and submits that in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said judgment, it has been dealt with by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that the said provision is ultra vires. He further submits that earlier the appellants had preferred Cr.M.P. No.3794 of 2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2024 with liberty to avail alternative remedy and, thereafter, the present criminal appeal has been filed after expiry of 180 days. He submits that the land dispute is there and for that the present case has been filed against the appellants in which cognizance has been taken against them. He also submits that the case of the appellants is also covered in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty and another v. State of West Bengal and another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance may kindly be quashed.

8. Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that after much delay, the present appeal has been preferred, however, she is not disputing the ratio laid down by the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. She further submits that on the complaint, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the appellants and there is no illegality