2025:JHHC:38786 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.119 of 2025 …. 1. Shiv Prasad, aged about 65 years, Son of Ram Sahay Swarnkar, 2. Dinesh Soni @ Dinesh Kumar, aged about 48 years, Son of Sri Ram Kishore Swarnkar @ Kishore Sonar, 3. Sudhir Soni @ Sudhir Kumar, aged about 35 years, Son of Sri Ram Kishore Swarnkar @ Kishore Sonar All residents of Village-Nagarkhara, P.O.,P.S. and District- Koderma. ……Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Vimla Devi, Wife of Dev Narayan Paswan @ Narayan Paswan, aged about 50 years, Resident of Village-Purna Nagar, P.O., P.S. and District-Koderma ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Binay Kr. Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate …… Judgement Delivered on 17.10.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants by challenging the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Koderma in Complaint (SC/ST) Case No.09/2024 by which the learned Court has taken cognizance against the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Complainant had purchased 16 decimals of land (out of 24 decimals) under plot No.881, Khata No.13 of Mauza-Purna Nagar, from M/s Harihar Prasad Swarnkar and Arjun Prasad Swarnkar, both sons of Late Yadu Sonar of village- Purna Nagar, P.S.-Koderma, vide registered 2025:JHHC:38786 2 Sale Deed No.1776 (wrongly mentioned as 1556 in complaint petition) dated 30.03.2007. It has been further stated in the complaint petition that since then, the complaint and her family members have been coming in peaceful possession of their purchased land and rent receipts were also issued subsequently in the name of the complaint regarding the said land. However, on 26.04.2024, while the complainant party was digging foundation over that land for construction of a house, then the accused persons reached there and they forcibly stopped them from doing work over the same and also filled the foundation with the help of a JCB machine. The accused persons also allegedly used abusive language against the complainant and made castiest remarks against her and also tore off her saari and blouse and later on, the accused persons also reached at the house of the complainant and threatened her and her family members with dire consequences. It has also been alleged that the accused persons are making their claim over the land in question on the basis of a forged and fabricated document. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the appellants have neither threatened the complainant nor used any word denoting the caste, even they have not committed any overt-act what has been alleged in the complaint petition. It is further submitted that it is a land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the entire land in question appertaining to Khata No.13, Plot No.881 measuring an 2025:JHHC:38786 3 are of 24 decimals belongs to the appellants as Ram Sahay Swarnkar father of the appellants, had purchased the said land on 01.12.1965 from Jadu Sonar, and they are also getting rent receipts. But the complainant has got surreptitiously executed a forged sale deed for the land measuring an are of 16 decimals from the sons of Jadu Sonar, which is illegal. It is further submitted that the Register-II is also in the name of Ram Sahay Prasad Swarnkar for the entire area of 24 decimals of land pertaining to Plot No.881, Khata No.13. 5. It is further submitted that the complainant has examined altogether three (03) Inquiry witnesses who are I.W.- Sudama Devi is Gotni of the complainant, while I.W-2 Narayan Paswan is the husband of the complainant and they have deposed exaggerated version of the alleged occurrence which is clear from the evidence of Om Prakash Pandey i.e. I.W.-3. 6. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has itself held in the impugned order at para-6 that there is land dispute between the parties. It has also been held by the learned Trial Court in its impugned order that I.W.-3 Om Prakash Pandey during inquiry has not supported the allegations of assault or tearing of blouse or sari of the complainant, he has stated only about mild scuffle and use of abusive language. 7. It is further submitted that this is a purely civil dispute and the land in question belongs to the appellants and the complainant is putting pressure upon the appellants to leave their claim by instituting a false case and the appellants have title and possession both since 1965 from the date of purchase and hence the order passed by the learned Trial Court may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of 2025:JHHC:38786 4 the appellants and there is no interreference required in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, after adopting the submissions of learned APP, has submitted that the accused persons forcefully tried to garb the land of the complainant as because they are the land mafias of the said locality and the land in question has been purchased by the complainant through sale deed and thereafter the same has also been mutated in the name of the complainant and regular rent receipt has also been issued in the name of complainant. 10. It is further submitted that the complainant has already constructed three rooms and boundary walls upon the said land and she is enjoying the title and interest over the said land but the appellants tried to evict the complainant from the said land when the same was objected by her and other family, they started assaulting abusing and misbehaving with the entire family members in front of other villagers. It is further submitted that the complainant and her family members were humiliated by the accused person by using on their caste name in front of several villagers and hence prima facie case is made out under SC/ST Act and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would be applicable and hence this criminal appeal may be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the Complaint (SC/ST) case no.09/2024 was filed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Koderma on 29.04.2024 for the occurrence was taking place on 26.04.2024 i.e. after the delay of three days. 12. It further appears that the complainant, during her solemn affirmation, stated that the occurrence had taken place on 2025:JHHC:38786 5 26.04.2025 at 08:00 AM in the morning while she was on her land and the appellants were alleged to have assaulted her and her Gotni (i.e. sister-in-law) and the matter was pacified by Punam Devi, her husband Narayan Paswan, OM Prakash Pandey. However, during Court’s question, she stated that she has not filed any civil case with regard to the land dispute. She also stated that she has purchased the said land from Harihar Prasad Svarnkar and Arjun Swarnkar, who are the gotias of the accused persons. 13. It also appears from the Inquiry witnesses i.e. I.W.-1 namely Sudama Devi, I.W.-2 namely Narayan Paswan and I.W.-3 namely Om Prakash Pandey were also been examined by asking Court’s questions and have stated in the question put forward by the Court that there is land dispute between both the sides. 14. It also appears that the appellants, in support of their case, enclosed the photocopy of the Sale Deed dated 01.12.1965 executed by Jadu Sonar, having an area of 24 decimals in favour of the Ram Sahay Prasad Swarnkar, who is the father of the appellants. 15. It has been held in the case of Hitesh Verma Vrs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. reported in 2020 Vol.10 SCC 710 at para 18 and 22 as follow:- “Para-18:- Therefore, 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 such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. Para-22:- The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because respondent No.2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not 2025:JHHC:38786 6 on account of the fact that respondent No.2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law. 16. It has been held in the case of B. Venkateshwaran & Ors. versus P. Bakthavatchalam reported in 2023 0 AIR(SC) 2023 at para 3 as follow:- “Para-3:- ……………………………………………….. …………….It appears that a private dispute was going on between the parties with respect to the illegal construction. As per the allegations in the complaint, the original complainant had purchased the vacant land and constructed the building. It is alleged that adjacent to his house and on the common pathway, the accused have unlawfully encroached upon the pathway and sewage pipeline and EB Cable. In the entire complaint, there are no allegations that the complainant is obstructed and/or interfered with enjoyment of his right on his property deliberately and willfully knowing that complainant belongs to SC/ST.…………………………...………… ……………………From the aforesaid, it seems that the private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings. Initiation of the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court. …………………………………….” 17. It appears that there is a land dispute between both the sides. 18. Therefore, in view of the above judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India mentioned above no offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the 2025:JHHC:38786 7 appellants. However, the same has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Court below. 19. Under the circumstances and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Koderma in Complaint (SC/ST) Case No.09/2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court for pass afresh order in accordance with law and giving reasonable opportunity for hearing of both the sides. 20. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.119 of 2025 remitted back to the learned Court below take decision afresh. 21. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) is allowed and disposed of with the observations mentioned above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-