IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 486 of 2023 Rajendra Yadav @ Rajender Yadav, 55 years, son of Dwarika Yadav, Resident of village Azad Nagar, Vikash Bhawan Road, Sahibganj, P.O. Bara Jirwabari, P.S. Borio (J), Sahibganj --- --- Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chinmay Atit Singh, son of Manohar Prasad Singh, Resident of village Manihari, P.O and P.S. Manihari, District Katihar (Bihar) --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Appellant: M/s Gautam Kumar, Savita Kumari, Pushpanjali Kumari, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Special P.P. For the Resp. No. 2: Mr. Anand Kumar, Advocate --- 16 / 09.01.2025 This appeal has been filed for setting aside the order taking cognizance dated 24.09.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sahibganj in connection with SC/ST Case No. 25 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 812 of 2019, whereby and wherein, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sahibganj cook cognizance of the offence in the aforesaid case under sections 448/380 of the Indian Penal Code along with section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the Respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint case alleging therein that the appellant is the resident of adjoining landed property. He was trying to dispossess him and tried to raise illegal construction on the land of the Respondent No. 2. When the Respondent No. 2 opposed the nefarious activity of the appellant, he abused him by calling him by caste name in full public glare. 4. It was submitted that the occurrence has taken place due to the land dispute between the parties. It was further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. On this ground, it was prayed that the order taking cognizance in this case be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Hitesh Verma Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in [(2020) 10 SCC 710], wherein it was held that offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the Informant is a member of Scheduled Caste, unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to 2. such caste. such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Schedule Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. 5. Statement of the Respondent No. 2 was recorded on S.A. in which he has specifically stated that the appellant has committed criminal trespass over his land and constructed house over it. On 08.01.2017 when he raised objection, he was abused by his caste name and he was also assaulted. 6. After the examination of the complainant and his witnesses during enquiry, learned Special Judge found prima facie case to be true under sections 448/380 of the Indian Penal Code along with section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is land dispute between the parties. But on specific query, whether any civil suit was pending between the parties, Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, replied in negative. It further appears that a proceeding under section 107 of the Cr. P.C was initiated between the parties at the instance of the Complainant / Respondent No. 2. There is clear cut averment in the S.A. by the Respondent No. 2 that the appellant had publicly abused him by calling him by caste name and also assaulted him. The facts of Hitesh Verma case (Supra) is different from the facts of the present case as there is no genuine land dispute between the parties. It appears that the appellant was trying to grab the land of the Respondent No. 2. 8. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that prima facie case under section 448/380 of the Indian Penal Code along with section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. I do not find any illegality in the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sahibganj in connection with SC/ST Case No. 25 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 812 of 2019. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded