Jharkhand High Court
Amal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024
------
1. Amal Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Sri Nilambuj Prasad Singh, Resident of Flat No. 03, Sri Krishna Apartment, Ward No.- 8, Near Pawan Steel Store, House No.886/8, Mehrauli, BTC, P.O. + P.S.- Mehrauli, Sub-District- Hauzkhas, District- South Delhi.
2. Shamsher @ Shamsher Ali Ansari, aged about 60 years
3. Nausad Ansari @ Nausad Ali Ansari, aged about 61 years Sl. No. 2 and 3 are Sons of Shekh Mojim Ali Ansari,
4. Md. Meraj Ansari @ Meraj Ali Ansari, Aged about 37 years
5. Sarfaraj Ansari @ Sarfaraj Ali Ansari, Aged about 37 years
6. Mahtab Ali Ansari @ Mahtab Ansari, Aged about 31 years.
Sl. No. 4 to 6 are Sons of Navsad Ali All resident of village- Husir, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Phulo Oraon, wife of Shohra Oraon, Resident of village- Husir, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Respondents
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG III
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order 1 W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024
(s)/direction (s) for quashing the First Information Report, in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.18 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120 B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (s)
(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being not the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, on 21.01.2022, wrongfully interfered with the enjoyment of the rights of the informant over her land and wrongfully dispossessed her. There is allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioners dispossessed the complainant by fabricating the records of the land in question. There is further allegation against the petitioners that they abused the informant who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes by her caste name in a place within public view. On the basis of the written-application submitted by the informant, police registered Kanke P.S. Case No.18 of 2022 and took up the investigation of the case, which is going on at present.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant has been set up by one Pankaj Singh to harass the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 purchased the land from one Pratima Jha who in turn, purchased the land from the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is next submitted that the informant of this case has also filed Original Suit (Title) No.33 of 2022 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ranchi. It is next submitted that the informant is in the habit of instituting false cases and the informant has also lodged Complaint Case No.266 of 2019 against the vendor of the petitioner No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024 Uttarakhand & Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 paragraph-18 of which reads as under:-
"18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out."
and submits that if the victim who claims title over any property hurl abuses even if that person is a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the offence punishable under Section 1 (s) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not be made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Writ Petition (Cr.). Learned counsel for the respondent- State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 draw the attention of this Court towards Section 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as under:-
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.-- [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
Xxxx
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view"
and submits that the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024 is made out, the moment a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, abuses any member of inter alia Scheduled Tribes by caste name, in any place within public view.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the undisputed fact is that the place of occurrence is a place within public view. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that there is allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioners, in criminal conspiracy with each other, abused the informant by her caste name. Hence, it is submitted that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety then at least the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioners.
8. It is next submitted that the Section 3 (1) (g) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as under:-
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.-- [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
Xxxx
(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the produce therefrom Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (f) and this clause, the expression "wrongfully" includes--
(A) against the person's will;
(B) without the person's consent;
(C) with the person's consent, where such consent has been obtained by putting the person, or any other person in whom the person is interested in fear of death or of hurt; or (D) fabricating records of such land;"
provides punishment for wrongfully dispossessing of a member of a Scheduled Tribes from his land or premises and the word 'wrongful' includes fabrication of records of such land.4 W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024
9. It is next submitted that Section 3 (1) (g) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also provides punishment for interference with the enjoyment of the right of any member of the Scheduled Tribes over any land and premises by any person who is not a member of Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. It is next submitted that in this case, there is direct allegation against the petitioners of interfering with the enjoyment of rights of the informant over the place of occurrence land and there is allegation of fabrication of the records of the place of occurrence land in question by the petitioners with a view to dispossess the informant. Hence, it is submitted that if the contents of the F.I.R. are treated to be true in their entirety then at least the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (g) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioners.
10. It is lastly submitted that the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 as well 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed.
11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are not the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, interfering with the possession of the informant over the place of occurrence land and there is allegation against the petitioners that they have indulged in wrongful acts by fabricating the records of the place of occurrence 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024 land. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that, if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then the materials in the record are sufficient to prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (g) and Section 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
12. So far as the judgment of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another (supra) is concerned, the observations were made in respect of Section 3 (1) (r) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The undisputed fact remains that the said penal provision of law is not involved in this case. Hence, the observations made in the judgment of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another (supra) is not relevant for the facts of this case.
13. So far as the contention of the petitioners that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that for the same set of facts there can be a civil dispute as well as a criminal case and merely because the civil remedy is available that does not bar institution of a criminal case. It is also a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering the prayer of quashing of the F.I.R., the veracity of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is not to be tested in exercise of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Under such circumstances, as already indicated above, that if the contents of the F.I.R. are considered to be true, the offences punishable under the penal provisions of law is made out against the petitioners, hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners to quash the F.I.R. of Kanke P.S. Case No.18 of 2022, be allowed. 6 W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024
15. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Kanke P.S. Case No.18 of 2022 is rejected and this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is dismissed.
16. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), the interim order granted vide order dated 10.12.2024, is vacated.
17. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of February, 2025 AFR/ Animesh 7 W.P. (Cr.) No.150 of 2024