Santosh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr

The present petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Spl. Judge, SC/ST,

Muzaffarpur in C. No. 135 of 2017/ Trial No. 563 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned court below has taken cognizance against the

petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 387 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) (X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The brief facts of the case are that a complaint is stated to have been filed by the complainant of this case before the learned court of Spl. Judge

SC/ST, Muzaffarpur bearing Complaint Case No. 135 of 2018, wherein it has been alleged that the father of the complainant, namely, Vishwanath

Rajak, aged about 75 years, in the year 2013, having been in need of money, had talked to the petitioner No.1 regarding sale of his land whereafter,

the accused persons had prepared an agreement for sale on Fifty rupees Non-judicial stamp paper and paid advance money as also in the said

agreement, the last date was fixed as 31st December, 2013, however, the accused persons failed to get the sale deed executed and did not pay the

balance amount of sale consideration on the pretext that they were not able to arrange a purchaser for the said land. Thereafter, the father of the

complainant, in the year 2014-15 and in the year 2017 sold his land as per the advice of the accused persons and then the commission was paid to the

petitioner no.1 and the accused no.1 assured to pay the balance amount of consideration money pertaining to the sale deed dated 06.06.2014 and

11.06.2014, however, accused no.1 did not pay a sum of about Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One lakh fifty thousand), resulting in the complainant demanding the

balance amount of sale consideration from the accused no.1 on a regular basis. It is alleged in the complaint petition that on the date and time of

occurrence, the complainant, for the purposes of some work, was going to Bairiya and when he reached near Dhobiyaghat situated at Sikandarpur, the

accused persons i.e. the petitioners had arrived there and surrounded the complainant as also had started assaulting the complainant and when the

friend of the complainant, namely, Chand came to save him, the petitioners no.3 and 5 herein started abusing the said Md. Chand as also assaulted

him, whereafter the accused persons had abused the complainant and his friend by calling their caste name i.e. “Sala Dhobiya†as also had stated

that they had become rich and had dared to make a complaint before the Dy. S.P., hence they should be killed and thrown there itself. The accused

no.1 had then taken out a sum of Rs.700/- from the pocket of the complainant. It is further alleged that in the meantime, the witnesses and other

people passing by had assembled and saved the complainant and his friend from being killed. It is alleged that the accused persons had called the

complainant and his friend by their castes name, hence had insulted them in public view, resulting in commission of crime under the provisions of the

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It appears that the learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Muzaffarpur had conducted an enquiry, recorded the statement of the complainant on oath as

also had examined three complaint witnesses i.e. Md. Chand, Md. Kaushar and Upendra Thakur, who have all supported the allegations levelled by

the complainant in the complaint petition and only after perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded on oath as also upon consideration of the

evidence led by the complainant by way of recording of statement of three complaint witnesses, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Muzaffarpur has

come to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out, hence, has taken cognizance against the accused persons i.e. the petitioners herein for the

offence under Sections 323, 504 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

The petitioners herein, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2018, have preferred the present quashing petition alleging therein that

firstly, land dispute is pending in between the parties, hence the case is of civil nature, thus taking cognizance of criminal offence by the learned court

below is an abuse of the process of the court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that no offence, as alleged by the

complainant, is made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act since the occurrence did not take place in public view. It is also submitted that the

present case has been filed in retaliation of the earlier case filed by the petitioners against the Opposite Party no.2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record including the complaint petition, the statement of the

complainant recorded on oath as also the evidence adduced by the three witnesses produced by the complainant apart from the impugned order dated

20.12.2018 passed by the learned court below.

At this juncture, it would be relevant to state that it is a well settled law that at the time of cognizance, the learned court below is only required to

see as to whether on the basis of materials collected during the enquiry, prima facie offences are made out or not, so as to proceed against the

accused persons and the defence of the accused persons cannot be looked into at the stage of taking cognizance.

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that since a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners herein, as aforesaid, the learned

court below has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners herein. This Court is of the further view that it is not the case of the petitioners that

the order of cognizance is without jurisdiction or there is any technical error. The only argument which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners

is that the matter is required to be examined on merits, however, this Court is of the opinion that since the Code of Criminal Procedure itself provides

certain remedies to the accused persons, order of cognizance, in absence of any illegality, is not required to be interfered with.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case as also there being no apparent error in the impugned order dated

20.12.2018, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference,

hence the present petition stands dismissed, however, with an indication that the petitioner may take all the pleas, which have been taken in the present

petition, at an appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of framing of charge by the learned court below.