Quashed

Rama Ram Rawani Alias Ram Prasad Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2023Cr.M.P./914/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed for quashing of FIRs arising from the same incident were heard together. The High Court held that no offence under Section 376 IPC or SC/ST Act was made out due to lack of rape allegations and lack of public incidence. Considering the filed compromise, both proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings arising out of Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.365 of 2017 and Complaint Case No.10 of 2017 are quashed.

Rama Ram Rawani Alias Ram Prasad Ram Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 914 of 2021

¶3

1.Rama Ram Rawani @ Ram Prasad Ram 2.Shankar Rawani 3.Sanjay Rawani @ Sanjay Kumar Ram 4.Mathura Ram Rawani @ Mathur Rawani 5.Ravi Rawani @ Ravi Kumar 6.Sandip Rawani 7.Malti Devi .….... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Budhan Hembram . .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) With Cr.M.P. No. 417 of 2021 1.Sandeep Rawani @ Sandeep Ram 2. Ravi Rawani @ Ravi Kumar 3.Mathura Rawani @ Mathura Rabani 4.Shankar Rawani 5.Sanjay Rawani @ Sanjay Kumar Ram..….... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Fulmani Hembrom @ Fulmani Devi .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, SPP AC to AAG-III For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate

¶6

11/ 15.02.2023 . Both the aforesaid Cr.M.Ps arising out of common issue/ incident, as such, both are being heard together and disposed of, by this common judgment. Cr . M. P. No.914 of 2021.

¶7

2. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing of the FIR in connection with Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.365 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.3657 of 2017 registered under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506, 376, 452 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(XIII) (IX), (X) & (XI) of the SC and ST Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989 arising out of complaint case no.14/17.

¶8

Cr . M. P. No.417 of 2021.

¶9

3. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ ST Act, Giridih, in connection with Complaint Case No.10 of 2017 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 341/ 323/ 354 B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(W) of the SC and ST Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989.

¶10

Cr . M. P. No.914 of 2021. & Cr . M. P. No.417 of 2021.

¶11

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the complaint and police case arise out of the same and the accused persons are common in both

¶12

of them . Under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C both the cases cannot proceed when the rice out of the same incidence and there is a common person in both.

¶13

It is further submitted that on the allegations made the offence under Section 376 and 452 IPC will not be made out. In the complaint case cognizance has not been taken for the offence of rape and consequently part of the prosecution story is falsified.

¶14

With regard to the application of provision of SC/ST Act it is submitted that there is no assertion that the incidence took place in public view and was watched by public at large. Therefore the offence under this Act will also not be made out.

¶15

It is further submitted that Cr. M. P. No.914 of 2021 has been registered on the basis of complaint No.14 of 2017 filed by one Budhan Hembrom against the petitioners for the offence which took place in between 21.02.2017 to 21.03.2017, for which, the complaint was filed on 07.04.2017.

¶16

It is further submitted that matter has been amicably settled and compromise petition has been filed by way of supplementary affidavit.

¶17

Learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party has raised no objection to the quashing petition and have not disputed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and the materials on record I find that no offence under Section 376 or SC & ST is made out. There is no allegation of commission of rape and offence under Section 354 IPC will not be made out as there was no intention to outrage the modesty, but was a case of altercation between both the sides. Offence under SC & ST will also be not made out as the incidence did not take place in public view.

¶19

Under the circumstance and in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and the compromise petition duly signed and filed by way of supplementary affidavit, the criminal proceeding arising out of Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.365 of 2017 and Complaint Case No.10 of 2017 is quashed.

¶20

Both the aforesaid Criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of in terms of compromise.

¶21

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶22

Sandeep/

Rama Ram Rawani Alias Ram Prasad Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Ram Rawani Alias Ram Prasad Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moiz Anwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akarsh Arnav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Singh Alias Rahul Ranjan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Santu Kumar Kushuwaha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Virendra Kumar Alias Gora Yadav Alias Birendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand