IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 804 of 2023 1. Alakhnath Pandey, aged about 52 years, son of Parshu Ram Pandey, resident of Ward No. 9, Village Chittvishram, P.O and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa 2. Ram Byas Pandey, aged about 39 years, son of Parshu Ram Pandey, resident of Ward No. 9, Village Chittvishram, P.O and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa 3. Shashi Kant Pandey, aged about 33 years, son of Alakhnath Pandey, resident of Ward No. 9, Village Chittvishram, P.O and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa --- --- Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kauleshwari Devi, aged about 47 years, wife of Sakhichand Ram, Resident of village Mangardah, P.O and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Appellants: Mr. Ranjit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Special P.P. For the Resp. No. 2: Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate --- I.A. No. 6681 of 2024 05 / 12.02.2025 This Interlocutory Application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 323 days in filing of this criminal appeal. 2. In view of grounds stated at paragraph no. 5, 6 and 7 of this interlocutory application, delay of 323 days in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 804 of 2023 4. This criminal appeal has been filed for quashing of order dated 19.09.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2021, whereby and wherein, after recording of statement of the witnesses on solemn affirmation, the learned Special Judge found the occurrence to be true under sections 341, 323, 504 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and issued processes under section 204 of the Cr. P.C. 2. 5. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a complaint case filed by the Respondent No. 2-Kauleshwari Devi, alleging therein that on 01.09.3032 at 8.00 a.m., appellants had come to her house and started abusing her and her family members by calling them by their caste name. She has further stated that occurrence has taken place because son of the Informant has married the daughter of the appellant no. 1. Complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste Community, while the appellants belong to the General category. Appellants also threatened the complainant and her son to get the marriage annulled. It further appears that the complainant and her witnesses have supported the allegation in the solemn affirmation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the daughter of the appellant no. 1 had filed a criminal case against the son of the complainant, alleging therein that he had abducted her on the knife point and forcefully married her. It was submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 7. It appears that the averments made in the complaint petition have been supported by the complainant and her witnesses in their statement recorded on solemn affirmation before the court below. Prima facie, this case under sections 341, 323, 504 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Defence of the appellants cannot be looked into at the stage of taking cognizance. Therefore, no case for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2021 is made out. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded