Allowed

Birendra Kumar Alias Bablu and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2014Cr.M.P./2105/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the First Information Report registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Relying on a joint compromise and finding no intent to insult under the Atrocities Act, the Court allowed the petition. The decision affects the named petitioners only.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report S.T. S.C. P.S. Case No.41 of 2007 is quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Birendra Kumar Alias Bablu and Ors. Vs The State Of… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 2105 of 2013

¶3

1.Birendra Kumar @ Bablu

¶4

2.Shekhar Kumar

¶5

3.Ramesh Singh @ Ramesh Kr. Singh

¶6

4.Chottu Mian ..... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶9

2.Jatri Oraon …. Opp. Party(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s V. K. Tiwary, S. K. Mishra, Pravin Kumar, Advocates. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate. -----

¶12

02 /01.04.2014. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned

¶13

counsel appearing for the O. P. No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶14

The First Information Report of S.T. S.C. P.S. Case No.41 of 2007 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 447 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.T. and S.C. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties have compounded the offences which are compoundable and that offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.T. and S.C. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act is not made out.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that while the informant was ploughing her field along with other family members including the husband, 10 -12 persons armed with rifle, guns etc., came over there and asked them to leave that place. When they objected, the accused persons assaulted the informant as well as her husband and they also behaved indecently.

¶16

On such allegation, F.I.R. as S.T. S.C. P.S. Case No.41 of 2007 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 447 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.T. and S.C. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989.

¶17

-2[ Cr. M. P. No. 2105 of 2013]

¶18

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the parties got the dispute resolved and have filed a joint compromise petition and hence, the offences under Sections 323, 504, 447 I.P.C., as alleged, be allowed to be compounded. Since the parties have compounded the main offence, the offence under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. also be allowed to be compounded.

¶19

Further submission is that no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.T. and S.C. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act as the alleged assault has never been made either upon the informant or her husband with a view to insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate them.

¶20

I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that whatever allegations have been levelled about the assault being made upon the informant and her husband, but such assault in the facts and circumstances of the case as is appearing from the First Information Report never seems to have been made with intent to humiliate and insult the informant or her husband and thereby, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.T. and S.C. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 accepts that the parties have got their dispute resolved and they have entered into a compromise and thereby, a joint compromise petition has been filed before the court below.

¶22

Under the circumstances, the First Information Report of S.T. S.C. P.S. Case No.41 of 2007 is hereby , quashed, so far the above-named four petitioners are concerned.

¶23

In the result, this petition stands allowed.

¶24

(R. R. Prasad, J.)

¶25

Sandeep/

Birendra Kumar Alias Bablu and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Kumar Alias Bablu and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Ranjan Vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanatan Giri Alias Sanatan Goswami Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Surya Mohan Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand

Ratan Lal Sahu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pradip Kumar Hansda Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Binay Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.