AMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants arrayed as accused in FIR No.18 of 2022 in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi were before the High Court for quashing of the FIR registered. The High Court, by the impugned judgment refused to quash the FIR, finding that there is a direct and specific allegation against the appellants of having criminally conspired to interfere with the possession of the subject land owned by the informant, which they attempted by fabricating documents. The informant being a member of a scheduled caste was abused using the caste name and together these constitute offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(g) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[for brevity the Act of 1989']. The appellants' contention that there was only a civil dispute between the parties, pending in a civil court, was found to be not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings since it is trite that on the same set of facts there could be a civil dispute and criminal case lodged.

(3.) Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the first appellant had purchased a property from the vendee of the other appellants in the year 2020 and was in possession of the same. It was one Pankaj Singh who instigated the informant to lodge the FIR and file a civil case against the appellants, since the first appellant failed to succumb to an attempt to extort an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from him. In fact, the very same complainant had filed a case against another person also at the instigation of the said Pankaj Singh. It is contended that appellant No.1 had lodged a complaint of interference with his property and demolition of the structure therein by Annexure P8 of 20/1/2022 and the subject FIR lodged on 25/1/2025 was a counter blast. The allegation in the FIR was regarding an alleged incident on 21/1/2022, which occurred in the subject property. Not only was the FIR filed belatedly on 25/1/2022 but a suit filed on the same date, with respect to the very same property, did not indicate such an incident having occurred.