Partly allowed

Siyakant Alias Neeraj Pandey Alias Chandra Kant Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Nov 2022Cr.M.P./2234/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the cognizance order under section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. It held that the complaint petition did not disclose the case of cognizable offence under that specific section, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding caste allegations.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance under section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, in connection with Sadar P.S.No.70 of 2019, is set aside; the trial court to proceed under other sections.

Siyakant Alias Neeraj Pandey Alias Chandra Kant Pandey Vs… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 2234 of 2021

¶4

----

¶5

Siyakant @ Neeraj Pandey @ Chandra Kant Pandey @ Siyakant Pandey @ Niraj Pandey, aged about 36 years, son of Vishundev Pandey, resident of Rajwadih, P.O.-Rajwadih, P.S.-Daltonganj Sadar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand ….. Petitioner

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2.Kunti Devi, wife of Sudheshwar Manjhi, resident of village-Rajwadih, Daltonganj Sadar, PO-Pajwadih, P.S. Sadar, District Palamau, Jharkhand

¶9

…... Opposite Parties

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishth, Spl.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶14

¶15

9 /07.11.2022 Heard Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishth, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

¶16

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding along with SC/ST Case No.34/20, in connection with Sadar P.S.No.70 of 2019 whereby cognizance has been taken under section 504 /506/34 of the I.P.C and under section 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as quashing of the cognizance order dated 14.12.2020, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.

¶17

The prosecution was lodged alleging therein that the FIR cum complaint petition is that on 24.04.2019 while the complainant was at her house, the petitioner along with four others on three motorcycles arrived at 10.00 am and started damaging the Khuntagarhi done by the government in front of her house. Upon which the complainant and her daughter in law came there and started that the land belongs to them and they are damaging Khuntagarhi. Upon which the petitioner took out a pistol from the waist and started abusing her by naming her caste and threatened to leave the place. The matter was informed to the police but

¶18

¶19

when no action was taken, then she filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau. On the basis of above complaint Sadar P.S.Case No.70 of 2019 was registered against the accused persons.

¶20

Mr. Mardi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the outset confined is prayer with regard to the cognizance so far taken under section 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the ingredients of those sections have not been made out and the grounds to prosecute the petitioner under that section has not been made. He submits that the case of the petitioner has not been disclosed in the complaint petition he relied on the case of “ Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.”, (2008) 12 SCC 531. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has been again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand and Another’ (Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020-Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3585 of 2020). Paragraph no.21 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶21

“21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was nondisclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there as civil dispute between the parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under section 3(i)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment”

¶22

Relying on this judgment, he submits that cognizance with regard to SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is bad in law.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.no.2 submits that ingredients under those

¶24

¶25

sections are there and in that view of the matter the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

¶26

Mr. Vashisth, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the charge sheet has been submitted and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance.

¶27

In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. On seeing of the complaint case, it appears that the case of the petitioner is not disclosed in the complaint petition and this aspect of the matter was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.”(supra) as well as “Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand and Another’(supra). The learned court has taken cognizance and has not discussed the prima facie materials against the petitioner so far as the cognizance under 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned.

¶28

Accordingly, that part of the order taking cognizance under section 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in connection with Sadar P.S.No.70 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, is set aside, and so far as other sections are concerned, the learned trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶29

The matter is remitted back to the learned concerned court to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.

¶30

Cr.M.P. No.2234 of 2021 stands disposed of.

¶31

I.A. if any also stands disposed of.

¶32

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

SI/;

Siyakant Alias Neeraj Pandey Alias Chandra Kant Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyakant Alias Neeraj Pandey Alias Chandra Kant Pandey 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

Kashi Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuneshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamal Deo Dusadh And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ranjan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamal Kishore Vs the State of Jharkhand