2026:JHHC:11252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.839 of 2024 ---- 1. Md. Sharifuddin Ansari @ Sharifuddin Ansari, aged about 75 years, Son of Late Ilahi Baks 2. Md. Jamil Asraf Ansari @ Jamil Ashraf Ansari, aged about 49 years, Son of Sarifuddin Ansari 3. Jamil Akhtar, aged about 36 years, Son of Sarifuddin Ansari 4. Gulam Mustafa Ansari @ Gulam Mustafa, aged about 37 years, Son of Sarifuddin Ansari 5. Nyeem Akhtar @ Dablu, aged about 34 years, son of Sarifuddin Ansari All residents of Village Bharra Basti, P.O & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pradeep Turi, Son of Late Prasadi Turi, resident of Village Bharra Basti, Turi Mohalla, P.O & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.C. Sahu, Advocate ---- 12/Dated: 18th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.272 of 2018 (T.R No.07 of 2018) arising out of S.C/S.T Case No.06 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 295, 295A, 323, 341, 427, 452, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants have further prayed for quashing the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.272 of 2018, corresponding to T.R No.07 of 2018 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. 2026:JHHC:11252 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.839 of 2024 3. It appears that complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.272 of 2018 has been filed by the complainant/victim namely, Pradeep Turi. It further appears that the appellants have preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.721 of 2019 for grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected vide order dated 06.11.2019, by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. In spite of rejection of anticipatory bail in the year 2019 itself, the appellants have not been participated in the Trial. Thereafter, the appellants have preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition before this Court being Cr.M.P No.3917 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 25.10.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the present criminal appeal has been preferred. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that since there is a land dispute between the parties and as such, the offence under Section 3(X) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is not made out. 6. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the victim have opposed the prayer stating that it is a misuse of the process of the court. 7. Law has been made to protect the weaker section of the society, but the present proceeding is a glaring example wherein the criminal proceeding has not only misused but efficacy of law has been thrown to the winds. In spite of rejection of the anticipatory bail in Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.721 of 2019, they have not participated in the proceeding till date. 8. The present proceeding has been used as a substitute of the anticipatory bail. Although, anticipatory bail has been rejected in a competent proceeding by this Court. 9. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, there is a clear-cut allegation that the appellants have tried to dispossess the victim, but there is an allegation of assault and abuse in the public place also. 10. Of course, learned Trial Court has considered the case under the old laws and cognizance has been taken under Section 3(X) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act while it should be under the new law. 11. It is further clarified that there is other sections are also applicable as not only abused, but dispossession is also there. 2026:JHHC:11252 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.839 of 2024 12. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the entire criminal proceedings in connection with S.C/S.T Case No.06 of 2019 (Complaint Case No.272 of 2018) as well as the order of taking cognizance dated 16.01.2019 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Bokaro. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby, dismissed. 13. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all coercive steps against the appellants to ensure their participation in the Trial. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 18th April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 22.04.2026