Partly allowed

Sita Ram Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC20 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./774/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings asserting false impliciation and omission of caste discrimination ingredients under SC Act. Court found complaint lacked averments of public view and caste status as per Gorige Pentaiah precedent, setting aside SC Act cognizance while upholding IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Order taking cognizance dated 09.04.2010 under SC & ST Act is set aside; cognizance under IPC sections remains intact.

Sita Ram Sharma And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 774 of 2010

¶3

Sita Ram Sharma 2. Sandeep Sharma 3. Brajesh Sharma .... …Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Father Joseph Ekka

¶6

..... …Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

¶10

10/ Dated:-20.03.2023

¶11

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶12

The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Complaint Case No. 70 of 2010 whereby cognizance has been taken under section 341, 323, 379, 504 of the I.P.C. and under section 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

¶13

The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that Pius Kerketta as the convener of the Church who purchased a piece of land measuring an area of 7.35 acres by registered sale deeds and surrounded the same by barbed wire but on 28.02.2010 the accused persons along with 10-15 other persons armed with various weapons stopped the work of boundary and abused the labourers despite their protest and those accused persons also alleged to have cut away the wires already affixed causing loss to the extent of Rs. 6,000/-.

¶14

Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 2 has left for his heavenly abode and his name was directed to be deleted vide order dated 02.12.2022 and so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are concerned the entire allegations are false and the petitioners

¶15

have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that so far as ingredient sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are concerned, that is not made out. He submits that there is no averment in the petition that the petitioners are not belonging to the SC/ST Caste as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others”, (2008) 12 SCC 531. Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:

¶16

“6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of the their caste. According to the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant accused as not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.”

¶17

He further submits that I.P.C. sections are also not made out and in that view of the matter entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

¶18

On the other hand Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the cognizance order.

¶19

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of complaint petition as well as cognizance order and finds that in the contents

¶20

of complaint petition there is no averment that occurrence has taken place in public view which is one of the requirement to make out the case under SC/ST Act. Further, there is no averments in the complaint petition that the petitioners are not belonging to the SC/ST caste which is another requirement to make out the case under SC/ST Act. The case of the petitioners is fully covered with the Gorige Pentaiah (supra) So far as argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that I.P.C. sections are not made out, he has not satisfied the court. Looking into the contents of F.I.R. the Court comes to the conclusion that the ingredient of I.P.C. sections are made out. The learned court has rightly taken cognizance under the sections of I.P.C.

¶21

In view of above facts, the order taking cognizance dated 09.04.2010 so far under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) is concerned, is set aside. This petition is allowed in part and disposed of.

¶22

It is made clear that cognizance order under the I.P.C. Sections is kept intact.

¶23

This petition stands dispose of. Pending, I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

Satyarthi/-

Sita Ram Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram Sharma And Ors. v. 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 And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Harishankar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudama Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ajit Kumar Dutta Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajani Kumar Ranjan and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Md. Yusuf Vs State of Jharkhand