AJAY GOBIND PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his entire criminal proceedings, arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 377/04, corresponding to G.R. No.2117/04, including the FIR.

(2.) Criminal law was set in motion on the written report presented by the informant-opposite party No.2 wherein who narrated that his wife Sarita Kujur, having her Account No.0001190010729 C.I.P, Patra Toli, Kanke, Ranchi, had sent a written complaint to the Chief General Manager, Patna against the Upper Bazar Branch of the State Bank of India, Ranchi on 5.5.2004. On 6.5.2004 when his wife Sarita Kujur went to the Upper Bazar Branch of State Bank of India, she was asked by the counter clerk to visit the chamber of the Bank Manager. The informant admitted that a loan certificate was granted by the Manager to him earlier in favour of the Oil India Corporation. The informant further narrated that there were six persons in that chamber, including the Bank Manager Sri A.K. Basant and one Sri Ajay Gobind Prasad (petitioner herein), who used filthy language by addressing her "Tribe" and they asked her by putting pressure to write a compromise letter and accordingly, she was compelled to write, being a tribal woman alone in the chamber, in absence of any woman of any organisation or any woman officer of the Bank, which constituted an offence. At that time, his wife Sarita Kujur was ill, undergoing treatment under the care of Dr. Sanjay Kumar and the accused persons compelled her to write a compromise letter. Explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, the informant stated that he belonged to Rourkela where he was working in Doordarshan and that there was marriage of his sister-in-law on 9.5.2004 and thereafter, his daughter fell ill and brought under care and treatment of Dr. Ajay Ghosh. The informant requested to seize the impugned letter, case withdrawal ledger register as also the computer harddisc so that the evidence may not be tampered and further requested to take appropriate step in the interest of social justice against the tribal woman. Copies of the letter were sent to the several authorities. A case was registered under Sections 342/506 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 7/8/9 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, giving rise to Kotwali P.S. Case No.377/04 on 20.7.2004.

(3.) It would be evident from the FIR, the learned counsel Mr. Prasad by initiating his argument submitted, that the informant wanted social justice for his wife. Yet, police registered a case under Sections 7/8/9 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ignoring that such Sections in the Special Act were not the offences at all. An explanation was called for from Sri A.K. Basant, the then Chief Manager, Upper Bazar Branch of State Bank of India, Ranchi by the Dy.S.P., Ranchi vide Memo No.817 dated 15.3.2010 after lapse of six years and the explanation was given on 23.3.2010 stating all the facts. The case was lodged after 2 = months of the alleged occurrence without any plausible explanation with mala fide intention and the police registered the case without verifying the veracity of the allegation made. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be deemed to be an abuse of the process of law as Sections 7/8 of the Special Act deal with setting up of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Protection Cell and Sec. 9 of the Act deals with nomination of Nodal Officer. None of the above Sections of the Special Act attracted penal offences and therefore, the case was registered without application of mind. It is nowhere alleged that the petitioner and others had humiliated the wife of the informant and that she was treated so because of her being a member of Scheduled Tribe. The prosecution of the petitioner under relevant Sec. of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 otherwise was also not maintainable as it was nowhere alleged by the informant husband that the petitioner accused was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally intimidated her with intent to humiliate her.