2026:JHHC:18485 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.779 of 2025 ---- Fagu Dom aged about 49 years son of Late Khandu Dom, resident of village Jhagrahi, P.O.-Jhagrahi, P.S.-Barora, District – Dhanbad. …. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rubibala Pandey Wife of Sandip Pandey; 3. Mrityunjay Pandey Son of Ajit Pandey; 4. Subhash Mandal son of Bitu Mandal; 5. Opni Mandal Son of Bitu Mandal; 6. Alka Mandal D/o not known; 7. Khedan Mandal son of Golak Mandal; 8. Paresh Mandal Son of Not known; 9. Jogen Mandal son of not known; 10. Khula Mandal son of not known; All resident of village Jhagrahi, P.O.-Jhagrahi, P.S.-Barora, District – Dhanbad. 11. Mithun Singh son of Pandav Singh; 12. Rajaram Singh son of Nirmal Singh; 13. Prabhat Singh son of Laldev Singh; Respondent No.11, 12 and 13 are resident of Behrakudar, P.O.+P.S.- Barora, District – Dhanbad. …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ---- 06/Dated: 24th June, 2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in SC/ST (Comp.) Case No.76 of 2024 filed under Sections 147, 2026:JHHC:18485 Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.779 of 2025 148, 149, 323, 341, 379, 386, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(5), 3(i)(vii), 3(i)(iii), 3(i)(F), 3(1)(i) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. 4. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been dispossessed and taken up the building materials and further using the abusive language. Two witnesses have been produced. The court has given specific finding that no witness has been examined and nothing has been brought on record to suggest the appellant are in possession of the said property. The witnesses had himself admitted that title suit is pending between the parties filed by the complainant themselves. 5. On a specific question asked from this Court and from perusal of the records, it appears that there is nothing material to suggest that the complainant belongs to the member of the particular community which is the prime consideration for identification of the proceeding under SC/ST (PoA) Act. 6. In view of above discussion, this court finds no reason to entertain the present appeal, accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. 7. Any observation made hereinabove will not affect the civil suit pending between the parties. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 24th June, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 29.06.2026