SYED SADRU ZAMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sarju Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mr. P.D. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order taking cognizance dtd. 28/2/2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Protest-cum- Complaint petition No.1748 of 2012 whereby by way of disagreeing with the Final Form submitted by the police after investigation the order of cognizance has been taken under sec. 341, 323, 427 and 452 IPC read with Sec. 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989.

(3.) Ms. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after investigation the police has submitted Final Form on 23/6/2012 mentioning therein that due to previous Civil Suit, the case was lodged and the matter relates to civil dispute. According to him, on 19/10/2012, the opposite party no.2 filed a protest cum complaint petition against the petitioners which was registered as Protest-cum-Complaint petition No.1748 of 2012. He submits that the land in question was the subject matter of Title Suit being Title Suit No.125 of 1989 and possession of that was provided to the petitioners pursuant to the execution of the said decree by the concerned court. He submits that in the protest cum complaint petition also so far as SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, the ingredients under those Sec. are not made out. He refers to paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the protest petition and submits that it was within the wall of the complainant. He submits that for a civil dispute unnecessarily the petitioners have been dragged in the criminal proceeding. According to him, only by way of adducing 2 or 3 witnesses, putting the criminal proceeding in motion is a serious thing.