CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Yamuna Prasad Sahu vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 28 September 2016 · Citation: (2016) 4 Crimes 280 : (2017) 1 NIJ 451

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 384, 420 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(x)(viii)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Cr. M.P. No. 1532 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 375 words

Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. Sidhant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No. 21 of 2008 (G.R. No. 443 of 2008) including the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 384/420 I.P.C. and Section 3(x)(viii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken.

2.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner had instituted a case in the year 2006 against the opposite party No. 2 u/s 138 of the NI. Act and as a retaliation to the said case, Kamdara P.S. Case No. 21 of 2008 has been instituted against the petitioner making a bald allegation of calling the informant by name of his caste. Even otherwise, the allegation made in the complaint petition does not make out an offence either u/s 384/420 I.P.C. or u/s 3(x)(viii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

4.

It appears from the F.I.R. that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner of calling the informant in the name of his caste. The argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the petitioner having instituted a case in the year 2006 against the opposite party No. 2 u/s 138 of the NI. Act and as a retaliation to the said case, Kamdara P.S. Case No. 21 of 2008 has been instituted, is negated solely on the ground of time gap between the two cases, as the petitioner had instituted the case in the year 2006 and opposite party No. 2 had instituted the case in the year 2008. Moreover from the status report which has been received, it appears that two witnesses have already been examined.

5.

Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the trial is on the verge of closure, I am not inclined to entertain this application and resultantly this application is dismissed.