Jharkhand High Court
Shobhi Rajwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 838 of 2023
Shobhi Rajwar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Kashi Rajwar,
resident of Village- Keduwa Kathgola Maidan, P.O. & P.S. Keduwadih,
District- Dhanbad ... Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ram Chandra Sharma, son of Late Deo Narayan Sharma, resident of
Keduwadih beside post office, P.O. & P.S. Kenduwadih, District-
Dhanbad
3. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Late Ambika Singh, resident of Near Kali
Mandir Hatia, P.O. & P.S. Kenduwadih, District- Dhanbad
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
-----
07/16.12.2024 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anup
Pawan Topno, learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in Protest-cum-C.P. Case No.2673/2022, corresponding to SC/ST Case No.17/2022 (arising out of Kenduadih P.S. Case No.15/2021) by which the protest-cum-complaint petition filed against respondent nos. 2 and 3 has been dismissed on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against them.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed Kenduadih P.S. Case No.15/2021, which was investigated by the police and final form was submitted stating therein that the case is of civil in nature and, thereafter, after receiving notice, the complainant has filed Protest- cum-C.P. Case No.2673/2022 and the learned Court without appreciating solemn affirmation and inquiry witnesses, has been pleased to dismiss the
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 838 of 2023 protest-cum-complaint petition and no cognizance has been taken against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and in view of that this appeal may kindly be allowed. He further submits that at the time of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be considered, which has not been done in the case in hand. He also submits that there is delay of 76 days in filing the present criminal appeal and for condonation of delay, I.A. No.12172 of 2024 has been filed. He submits that the delay may also be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Court has dealt with all the aspects of the matter and, thereafter, passed the order. He submits that the impugned order is a speaking order and no interference is required by this Court.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the earlier case being Kenduadih P.S. Case No.15/2021 filed by the appellant was investigated by the police and final form was submitted stating therein that the case is of civil in nature and, thereafter, the appellant has filed protest-cum-complaint case being Protest-cum-C.P. Case No.2673/2022, in which, the learned Court has been pleased to refuse to take cognizance against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed the said protest-cum-complaint case.
6. The learned Court has looked into the solemn affirmation as well as the statement of 3 inquiry witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant and found that the allegations are made that the complainant has taken the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs from accused no.2 (respondent no.3) in the year
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 838 of 2023 2011 and the appellant was working in the colliery and accused no.1 (respondent no.2) was also working there and the Court examining the same, has come to the conclusion that only to make pressure, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been tried to be inserted and in view of that, the learned Court has not been pleased to take cognizance against respondent nos. 2 and 3. If such a situation is there, the learned Court has rightly not taken cognizance and the procedure prescribed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. has been followed.
7. In view of the above facts, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, no case of interference is made out.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
9. Since on merit itself, the appellant has not been able to establish his case, the delay of 76 days in preferring the present criminal appeal is not condoned.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No.12172 of 2024 is also dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 838 of 2023