Partly allowed

Smt Jhimli Majumdar and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2022W.P.(Cr.)/206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition in part, quashing the cognizance taken under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act due to improper investigation by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, while refusing to interfere with the cognizance for IPC charges.

What did the court decide?

The part of the order dated 29.04.2015 regarding cognizance under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act is quashed; the order regarding Sections 353, 504/34 IPC is kept intact.

Smt Jhimli Majumdar and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 206 of 2015

¶3

Smt. Jhimli Majumdar (Ward Counseler), W/o Jayant Kumar Majumdar 2. Jayant Kumar Majumdar @ Jayanta Kumar Majumdar, S/o Ajit Majumdar

¶4

Uday Das, S/o Upen Das

¶5

All resident of Refugee Colony, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, DistrictJamtara … Petitioners

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Ismail Tudu, Circle Officer, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, DistrictJamtara … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II

¶11

13/12.04.2022. Heard Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhat Kumar assisted by Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel for the State.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed for quashing part of the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No.138/2014, G.R. No.345/2014, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara.

¶13

On the written report of the Circle Inspector, Jamtara, the case was lodged against the petitioners alleging therein that on 17.04.2014 the informant with the order of the Circle Officer went to Refugee Colony for spot inspection of the work done under HSDP Yojna when in between Srimati Jhimli Majumdar (petitioner no.1) came there and said the informant

¶14

¶15

to show the Circle Officer's order and after showing the same, she snatched it and torn it and also abused the informant because of his caste. It was further alleged by the informant that thereafter other accused persons also came there and started abusing the informant by his caste.

¶16

Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier notices were issued upon respondent no.2, but he has not appeared. The respondent no.2 is the Circle Inspector, Jamtara.

¶17

Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned SC-II has argued on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶18

Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that in view of Section 9 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 and Section 4 of the Cr.P.C., the part of the order dated 29.04.2015 whereby cognizance under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioners, is fit to be quashed. He further submits that admittedly the investigation was conducted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and in view of that Rules, the investigation was required to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and this aspect of the matter has been considered in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and recently in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore & another , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 577 .

¶19

Paragraphs 3, 4, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

¶20

“3. The preliminary investigation confirmed that the deceased was last seen with the present respondents. After registration of FIR, the investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector and charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondents for offences punishable under Sections

¶21

¶22

302/34, 404/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and Special Case No. 37/11 was registered.

¶23

4. During the proceedings in Special Case No. 37/11, statement of the material witnesses PW 2 Narsu, PW 4 Kamla Prajapati and PW 5 Uparia Bai, wife of the deceased Baisakhu were recorded. It appears from the record that at the advanced stage of the trial, a grievance was raised by the respondents that they had been charged under Section 3(2) (v) of the 1989 Act and since the investigation has been conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is the mandate of law as provided under Section 9 of the 1989 Act read with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 1995 Rules”), the very investigation is faulty and illegal and that deserves to be quashed and set aside and in consequence thereof, further proceedings in trial does not hold good and the respondents deserve to be discharged.

¶24

10. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the respondents were charged under Sections 302/34, 404/34 IPC apart from Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act and the charges under IPC have been framed after the investigation by a competent police officer under the Code, in such a situation, in our view, the High Court has committed an apparent error in quashing the proceedings and discharging the respondents from the offences committed under the provisions of IPC, where the investigation has been made by a competent police officer under the provisions of the Code. In such a situation, the charge-sheet deserves to proceed in an appropriate competent court of jurisdiction for the offence punishable under IPC, notwithstanding the fact that the charge-sheet could not have proceeded confined to the offence under Section 3 of the 1989 Act.

¶25

11. The order impugned is accordingly restricted to the offence under Section 3 of the 1989 Act and not in respect of offences punishable under IPC. Special Case No. 37/11 is restored on the file of the Special Court, District Anuppur (M.P.) and the trial court may proceed further and conclude the trial expeditiously in respect of offences punishable under IPC in accordance with law. ”

¶26

Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned SC-II appearing for the State fairly submits that so far as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, that law is well settled. So far as the Indian Penal Code is concerned, cognizance has rightly been taken.

¶27

In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on

¶28

¶29

the record. It is an admitted fact that the investigation was conducted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Section 9 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 has not been considered, in accordance with law by the learned court below, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babbu Rahore (supra) . This aspect of the matter has been earlier considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh , reported in (2009) 12 SCC 649 .

¶30

In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the statutory provisions provided under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the part of the order dated 29.04.2015 so far as the cognizance taken under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, the part of the order dated 29.04.2015 so far as the cognizance taken under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is, hereby, quashed. So far as the cognizance taken under Section 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court is not inclined to interfere to that part of the order dated 29.04.2015 and that part of the order is kept intact.

¶31

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed in part and disposed of.

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Ajay/

Smt Jhimli Majumdar and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jhimli Majumdar and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangra Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Pramila Kumari Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dev Kumar Dubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kishun Ray Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radha Mohan Mishra Alias R M Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Nirmal Singh and Ors. Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and Ors.