2025:JHHC:36568 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.666 of 2025 …. Shivnayaran Das, aged about 60 years, son of Late Sanichar Das, resident of Vill-Anupmanjhidih Punsiya, P.O. & P.S.-Rikhiya, Dist:- Deoghar ……Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Jawahar Singh, s/o Satyanarayan Choudhary, 3.Lalan Singh, Son of Bijay Singh Both resident of village- Udhwadih, P.O. & P.S.- Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur, 4. Ramanand Singh, Son of Sunil Singh, 5. Rishu Singh, Son of Shambhu Singh, Both resident of village- Anupmanjhidih Punsiya, P.O. & P.S.- Rikhiya, District-Deoghar ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No.05/01st December 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed in SC/ST Case No.38 of 2022 by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned A.S.J.-I-Cum-Special Judge, Deoghar by which the learned Court below has taken cognizance against the Respondent No.2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 323,341,504 of I.P.C. and has transmitted the case in the Court of Miss Srishti Ghai, J.M. Deoghar for further proceeding in accordance with law. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is 2025:JHHC:36568 2 challenging this order in part as the learned Court below has not taken cognizance under the provisions of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, although the learned Court below had taken cognizance under Section 323, 341 & 504 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the Informant was abused in public view and as such the learned Court below has committed illegality by not taking cognizance against the Respondent No.2 to 5 under the Provisions of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted that the complainant and his witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case during the enquiry proceeding and hence the impugned order may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interfere is required from this Court. It is submitted that the learned Court below has passed reasoned order for not taking cognizance under the provisions of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the Respondent No.2 to 5 has relied upon the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. the State of Kerala and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 and hence there is no illegality at this stage in the order passed by the learned Court below. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the complainant- appellant has filed the Complaint Case no.38/2022 before the learned A.S.J.-Cum-Special Judge, Deoghar against the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 for abusing him in the name of his caste and also for outraging the modesty of his wife. 6. It appears that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order on the basis of solemn affirmation of the appellant 2025:JHHC:36568 3 and also on the basis of statement of enquiry witnesses by relying upon the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. the State of Kerala and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 and has held that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not attract Section 3(1)(r) erstwhile Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 7. This Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below at this stage. The Magistrate has exercised discretion by taking cognizance. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this criminal appeal at this stage. 9. However, it will be open to the appellant to take appropriate step in accordance with law, if any evidence comes lateron during any proceeding pending before the learned Court below. 10. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.666 of 2025 is hereby dismissed with the observation mentioned above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 01.12.2025 Nishant/-