DEBNARAYAN SEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceeding registered in Suri P.S. Case No.448 of 2015 dated 17th December, 2015 under Section 323/427/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(iv)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as Act of 1989) has been assailed. The allegations in the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which were treated as F.I.R. in the instant case is to the effect that the defacto - complainant and his family members are members of the Scheduled Caste Community. It has been claimed that the family members of the defacto - complainant were carrying on pisciculture in the pond in question for the last 50 years. On 20.3.2015 at about 8 A.M., the petitioners attacked the defacto - complainant and assaulted him and took away fishes from them. The petitioners also abused the defacto -complainant by referring to their caste. When the family members of the defacto -complainant objected, they were further abused and it was stated that the petitioners shall not permit them to enter the pond as they were members of low caste. The petitioners had also threatened that they would kill and/or destroy fishes which were raised by the defacto -complainant in the pond.

(2.) The petitioners have assailed the impugned proceeding, inter alia, on the ground that the uncontroverted allegations in the first information report do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. There is no averment in the first information report that the petitioners are not members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Community and that the question of dispossession of the defacto -complainant from the pond does not and cannot arise at all inasmuch as they were not in possession of the pond at all and it was the petitioners who were carrying on pisciculture in the said pond.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner argued that a complaint was lodged against the defacto -complainant for committing theft in the said pond on 20.3.2015. He further drew my attention to the fact that although there was a lease executed in favour of the defacto -complainant to carry on pisciculture in the pond in question but the said lease had expired long ago and since then the petitioners themselves were carrying on such activity in the pond. It is also brought to my notice that a pre -emption suit is pending by and between the parties. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the allegations of dispossessing or preventing the defacto -complainant from entering the pond on account of their caste appears to be patently absurd and inherently improbable. Provisions of the Act of 1989 has been invoked to harass and humiliate the petitioners particularly petitioner no.3 who is an employee of Central Government. Reliance has to be placed on (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446 (Gorige Pentaiah ­vs - State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) and 2013 (1) Supreme 257 (Ravinder Singh ­vs - Sukhbir Singh & Ors.)