2026:JHHC:19701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.797 of 2025 ---- 1. Mahesh Kumar Singh aged about 77 years, son of Late Chandradeo Singh, resident of village Kansar, P.O.-Bahimar, P.S.-Katkamsandi, District- Hazaribag. …. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Yashoda Devi wife of Byash Ram, Resident of village Kansar, P.O.- Bahimar, P.S.-Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribag ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv. ---- 10/Dated: 06th July, 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, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 3. The present criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.797 of 2025 has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Hazaribag in connection with S.C./S.T. No.32 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the charge under Sections 420/467/468/323/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) has been framed. The case is presently pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum- Special Judge SC/ST, Hazaribag. 4. From the argument of the parties, it appears that the allegation has been made that the complainant being the ration card holder namely Yasoda Devi was not getting the ration and she has been abused. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised objection that there is nothing on record to suggest that this was a functional ration card and further 2026:JHHC:19701 Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.797 of 2025 she has been wrongfully denied the ration. Further, the death of mother has not also been reported that the extra unit was there. 6. It further appears that there is no evidence to suggest the caste status of the victim at the time of cognizance. These all requires consideration. Either it should have been enquired into by the concerned magistrate through the independent agency or the matter should have been referred for the investigation. 7. Maintaining the complaint petition and sending it for the FIR is not a desire of one and another party rather it is requirement of the case. If the case requires investigation, then usually it should be referred for the investigation or the due enquiry should be made by the concerned court through proper agency. The SC/ST (PoA) Act is a protective legislation and it has been legislated to protect the weaker section of the society. 8. Considering the object of the legislation and nature of dispute between the parties, the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Hazaribag in connection with S.C./S.T. No.32 of 2024, are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. The concerned court is directed to refer the matter for investigation. 10. With above observation and direction, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 06th July, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 09.07.2026