Dismissed

Shiv Kumar Khemka and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC6 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./1861/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings including cognizance under the SC/ST Act and IPC Sections 323, 379/34. The court held proceedings were maliciously filed as the dispute was essentially about unpaid salary, a civil matter, and the SC/ST Act essentials were not made out due to lack of caste non-belonging averment. The proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance dated 05.06.2014, along with complaint case no. 112 of 2014 are quashed.

Shiv Kumar Khemka and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1861 of 2014

¶3

Shiv Kumar Khemka

¶4

Anand Mohan Roy

¶5

Shiv Das Pandit

¶6

Bajrang Prasad Dalmia ..... … Petitioners Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Karan Hari ..... … Opposite Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate. : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate.

¶12

¶13

06/ 06.11.2023 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Vikram Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶14

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 05.06.2014, by which, cognizance for the offence under sections 323, 379/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 112 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad.

¶15

The complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that the petitioners have stopped the salary of the O.P. No. 2 and for payment of the same, when the O.P. No. 2 met the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 14.12.2013, they abused the O.P. No. 2 by mentioning his caste.

¶16

It is further alleged in the complaint petition that again the O.P. No. 2 met all the petitioners on 07.01.2014 and upon seeking the O.P. No. 2, the petitioners started abusing him by mentioning his caste and the petitioner No. 3 snatched Rs. 600/- from the pocket of the O.P. No. 2.

¶17

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary, petitioner No. 2 is the C.M.O., petitioner No. 3 is the Supervisor and the petitioner No. 4 is the Chairman of the Dwarika Das Jalal Memorial Hospital, Dhanbad. He submits that the O.P. No. 2 was employed as

¶18

-2-

¶19

sweeper in the said hospital and was regularly paid the salary. He further submits that the chart of payment is annexed as Annexure-4 of the petition. He further submits that the only allegation against the petitioners in the complaint petition is that the salary of the O.P. No. 2 was not paid for that maliciously the present complaint case has been filed and even the SC/ST Act has been added, wherein the ingredients of SC/ST Act is not made out, as it is not stated in the complaint petition that the petitioners are not belonging to the caste of the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that the conduct of the O.P. No. 2 was not proper and a complaint to that effect has been made by a nurse before the authorities that’s why the O.P. No. 2 was removed from the work. He further submits that maliciously the present case has been filed.

¶20

Mr. Vikram Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the salary of the O.P. No. 2 has not been paid and when he has gone to demand the same, the petitioners have abused him. He submits that the case is made out, as such, this court may not exercise its power to quash the proceedings.

¶21

Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that on the complaint petition, the learned court has taken the cognizance.

¶22

In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record including the contents of the complaint petition. Admittedly, in the Solemn Affirmation, O.P. No. 2 has alleged that the salary has not been paid to him and if any dispute is there with regard to the salary, the criminal complaint is not a remedy, whereas the action is required to be taken before the another forum. Further the court finds that even the SC/ST Act has been inserted in the complaint case and there is no averment that the petitioners are not belonging to the caste of the O.P. No. 2 and in view of that so far as that Act is concerned, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Versus State of A.P. & Ors. , reported in

¶23

(2008) 12 SCC 531 .

¶24

It appears that the petitioners are the Secretary, the C.M.O., the Supervisor and the Chairman of the reputed Dwarika Das Jalal Memorial Hospital in the district of Dhanbad and maliciously the

¶25

-3-

¶26

present case has been filed. The statement with regard to payment of salary has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the petition, which suggests that the payment was being made to the O.P. No. 2 through Bank transaction and if any dispute with regard to salary is there, the petitioner is having the remedy under the different forum.

¶27

In view of the above and considering that maliciously the complaint case has been filed against the petitioners, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 05.06.2014, by which, cognizance for the offence under sections 323, 379/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 112 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed. 10. This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶28

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶29

Amitesh/-

Shiv Kumar Khemka and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Khemka 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Dutta Alias Sri a K Dutta Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Binod Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Sagar Mishra Alias P S Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Kurban Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahabuddin Ansari and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Surju Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.