Dismissed

Shri Mahmood Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Feb 2023Cr.M.P./81/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an earlier order taking cognizance in an SC/ST atrocity case. The court found sufficient materials on record regarding the abuse of the victim by caste name and rejected the defence of a pending land dispute.

What did the court decide?

The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

Shri Mahmood Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 81 of 2022

¶3

¶4

Shri Mahmood Ansari

¶5

Shri Sakil Ansari

¶6

Shri Gafar Ansari

¶7

Barasat Ansari @ Basarat Ansari

¶8

Amanat Ansari

¶9

Jibril Ansari @ Jibrel Ansari … …. Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand

¶12

Ram Kisan Munda … …. Opp. Parties

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shresth, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate

¶16

Oral Order

¶17

06 / Dated : 09.02.2023

¶18

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.12.2021 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 39 of 2021 (SC/ST Case No. 91 of 2021) registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(i) (s) (g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶19

As per the case of the informant, the petitioners conjointly entered upon the land in the possession of the informant and obstructed him from digging the trenches over it. When he opposed, he was abused by calling his caste name, assaulted and threatened with life. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is land dispute pending and the incident did not take place in public place. Therefore, in view of the ratio decided in (2020) 10 SCC 710 the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not be made out

¶20

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant, opposed the quashing petition and submitted that the informant is the member of the Scheduled Tribe and he was prevented from making construction over his land which is in the nature of Bakast Bhuihari land and the restoration order has also been passed in favour of the informant under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act. In the teeth of the order and only with an intention to oust the informant, the petitioner committed trespass and abused him by calling his caste name.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the Officer In-charge of Angara Police Station was also an eye witness to the incident and supported the case and the other witnesses have also supported the case.

¶22

There is allegation of abusing the informant by calling his caste name in open field where he was digging trench for construction work. In view of the sufficient materials on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The instant Cr. Misc. Petition stands dismissed.

¶23

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶24

AKT

Shri Mahmood Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mahmood Ansari 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

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Istak Rain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Paul Bhengra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sujit Kumar Mehta Alias Sujit Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarabjeet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nripendra Kumar Mitra Vs the State of Jharkhand