PANKAJ JAISWAL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kumar learned APP appearing for the State as also Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1630 of 2015 including the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and where under, cognizance has taken for the offences punishable u/s 323/504 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint case has been instituted by way of malicious prosecution as there was a previous dispute between the mother of the petitioner and the landlord of the complainant which resulted in institution of a case u/s 133 Crimial P.C. for removal of encroachment. Pursuant to the order passed in the said case, the encroachment was removed by the administration and the complaint also reveals the date of incident as 29.06.2015. It has been further submitted that the landlord of the complainant, namely, Anil Singh had set him up to lodge a case under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel has also referred to the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as the statement of his wife and has submitted that there are major discrepancies in both the statements. It has been submitted that the complainant has admitted that there was no previous dispute between them and that he was a tenant of Anil Singh. Learned counsel has further stated that the entire incident even as per complaint petition is not within public view and in such circumstances, therefore the offence under Sec. 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out. It has been concluded that since the complaint case is merely an outburst against the proceeding under section 133 of the Crimial P.C. initiated against the landlord of the complainant and considering the fact that the ingredients with respect to constitute an offence under Sec. 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is absent, the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside.