Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 1146 of 2023
Sunil Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of late H.N. Singh Yadav,
resident of Flat No. 3, E-Type, Government Officers Flats,
Gilanpara, P.O.-Dumka, P.S.-Dumka, Dist.-Dumka
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Superintendent of Police, P.O.+P.S.+ Dist.-Dumka
3. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, P.O.+P.S.+ Dist.-Dumka
4. Sunita Marandi, d/o Moti Lal Marandi, resident of Village-
Hijla, P.O-Purana Dumka, P.S.-Dumka Town, Dist.-Dumka,
Jharkhand
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
: Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG III
For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate
: Mr. Amrendra Datri, Advocate
…..
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer
to quash the FIR being Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07 of
2023 dated 19.10.2023 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354 of Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which has been mentioned as
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
1
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )SC/ST Act, 2016 in the formal FIR as well as the endorsement
regarding registration of the case made on the FIR by the Officer-
in-Charge of the concerned SC/ST police station.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while
posted as settlement officer was approached by the informant-
respondent no.4 lady with an application under Right to
Information Act. It is alleged that the petitioner became enraged
and refused to receive the said application under the Right to
Information Act and told informant-respondent no.4 that they are
insane Adivasis and they are coming to annoy and thereafter
abused using obscene language and indecent behaviour and
pushed the informant-respondent no.4 out of his chamber which
humiliated the informant-respondent no.4. It is further alleged
that many persons were present in the chamber of the settlement
officer at the time of occurrence.
4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant-
respondent no.4, registered Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07
of 2023 and took up investigation of the case and it is submitted at
the Bar that the investigation of the case is still going on.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by
drawing attention of this Court to Section 2 (c) of the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
Clauses 24 and 25 of Article 366 of the Constitution of India and
also Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India that conjoint
reading of the same goes to show that only the castes, races or
tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
2
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
are deemed under Article 342 of the Constitution of India can be
termed as Scheduled Tribes and those castes which has been
mentioned in Article 341 of the Constitution of India can be
termed as Scheduled Castes within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the only caste which has been stated in the FIR is
“Adivasi”.
6. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-9 which is the copy
of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 at page no. 75
of the brief which is part XXII relating to Jharkhand, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that caste
Adivasi has not been included in part XXII of the said Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and undisputedly, as the
occurrence took place in the District of Dumka, which is within
the State of Jharkhand and the only caste name that cropped up
from the FIR is that the informant is a Adivasi but the caste Adivasi
does not come under the ambit of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes mentioned in Section 2 (c) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 hence, the
sine-qua-non to constitute the offence under Section 2 (1) (r) of
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989; that the victim must be a member of schedule caste or a
schedule tribe, is lacking so even if the entire allegation made in
the FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence
punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) of Scheduled Castes &
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
3
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made
out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3
(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 also, the essential requirement is that the
victim must be a member of Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe
and additionally the victim must be abused by the caste name. It
is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
this case no caste name of any scheduled castes or scheduled
tribes have been mentioned, so the offence punishable under
Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also not made out.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is no statute named as SC/ST Act, 2016 in respect of
which FIR has been registered. Thus, otherwise also, the FIR in
respect of the offences punishable under SC/ST Act, 2016 is not
maintainable.
8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there is no allegation of any intention of the
petitioner to outrage the modesty of the informant and in the
absence of the same, as also in the absence of any allegation
against the petitioner that the petitioner by the act done by him
knew that by such act the modesty of the informant would be
outraged, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 354 of
Indian Penal Code is also not made out either from the FIR.
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
4
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
9. So far as the offences punishable under Section 504, 506 and 323
of Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that those offences are non-cognizable
offences. It is then submitted that those offences are not made out
even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are
considered to be true in its entirety.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of
obstructing any person including the informant in such a manner
so as to prevent the movement of the informant or any other
person in certain direction in which she had the right to proceed
so, the offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code
is not made out even if the entire allegation against the petitioner
are considered to be true in its entirety.
11. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the informant has been set up by the persons inimical to the
petitioner, to prevent the career progression of the petitioner by
getting him embroiled in false cases. It is further submitted that it
is needless to mention that the petitioner is not the Information
Officer under the Right to Information Act, hence, there was no
occasion for the informant to approach the petitioner with the
application, purportedly under the provisions of Right to
Information Act. It is next submitted that there is also no
averment in the FIR that petitioner was the Information Officer. It
is lastly submitted that, as none of the offences in respect of which
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
5
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
FIR being Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023 has been
registered therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for
in this writ petition be allowed.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 files a counter affidavit.
Keep the same in the record.
13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4
that the writ petition is a premature one as investigation is still
going on. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent no.4 that the FIR disclose commission of the
cognizable offences in respect of which FIR has been registered. It
is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4
that the plea taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is
untenable hence, this writ petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 adopts the
argument put forth by the respondent no.4 and submits that this
writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.
15. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
appropriate to refer to Section 2 (c) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads
as under:-
“2. Definitions.–(1) In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,–
(c) “Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” shall
have the meanings assigned to them respectively under
clause (24) and clause (25) of Article 366 of the
Constitution;”
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
6
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
A plain reading of Section 2 (c) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 goes to show that the
words “Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe” as has been used in
the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 only in the contest of meaning assigned to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively under clause
(24) and clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India.
16. It is also relevant to refer to clause 24 and 25 of Article 366 of the
Constitution of India which reads as under:-
“366. Definitions.–In this Constitution, unless the
context otherwise requires, the following expressions
have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them,
that is to say–
(24) “Scheduled Castes” means such castes, races or
tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or
tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled
Castes for the purposes of this Constitution;
(25) “Scheduled Tribes” means such tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or
tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be
Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution;”
A plain reading of Clause 24 of Article 366 of the Constitution of
India goes to show that Scheduled Castes means castes, races or
tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as
are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the
purposes of the Constitution.
17. It is further relevant to refer Article 341 of Constitution of India
which reads as under:
“341. Scheduled Castes.–(1) The President [may with
respect to any State [or Union Territory], and where it is
a State [* * *], after consultation with the Governor [* *
*] thereof,] by public notification, specify the castes, races
or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or
tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
7
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State
[or Union territory, as the case may be].
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued
under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or
group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as
aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall
not be varied by any subsequent notification.”
which envisages that The President may inter alia with respect
to any State , after consultation with the Governor of the State, by
public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or
groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes
of the Constitution of India be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in
relation to that State, concerned.
18. Similarly, a plain reading of Clause 25 of Article 366 of the
Constitution of India goes to show that Scheduled Tribes means
such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such
tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 of
the Constitution of India; to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes
of the Constitution of India.
19. It is also relevant to refer to Article 342 of the Constitution of
India which reads as under:-
“342. Scheduled Tribes.–(1) The President [may with
respect to any State [or Union territory], and where it is
a State [* * *], after consultation with the Governor [* *
*] thereof,] by public notification, specify the tribes or
tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or
tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this
Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation
to that State [or Union territory, as the case may be].
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued
under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of
or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save
as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause
shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
8
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
which goes to show that The President may inter alia with
respect to any State , after consultation with the Governor of the
State concerned by public notification, specify the castes, races or
tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which
shall for the purposes of the Constitution of India be deemed to be
Scheduled Castes in relation to that State.
20. Thus, the conjoint reading of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with Clauses 24
and 25 of the Article 366 of the Constitution of India as well as
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, goes to show that
unless the name of the caste or tribe finds place in the public
notification made by The President of India, specifying the tribes
or tribal community or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal
community or castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within
castes, races or tribes; such person cannot be treated as a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; as has been referred to in
the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 or in other words unless the name of castes,
races or tribes or tribal community or parts of or groups within
tribes or tribal community finds place in the public notification,
such person cannot be treated as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes for the purpose of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
21. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against
the petitioner is that he has used the word that the informant is an
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
9
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
insane Adivasi. Now coming to Annexure-9 of this writ petition
which is a document of unimpeachable character, being the copy
of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in part XXII
goes to show that the caste Adivasi does not find place in the said
public notification. There is no allegation in the FIR that the
informant belongs to any of the castes mentioned in part XXII
which is applicable to the State of Jharkhand in the said
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It is not the case of
the informant that she is a member of scheduled castes. Under
such circumstances, this Court finds force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that, even if the entire allegation
made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its
entirety, still, neither the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r)
nor the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
made out.
22. It is pertinent to refer to Section 3 (1) (r) and Section 3 (1) (s) of
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 which reads as under:-
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.– [(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,–
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;”
23. A plain reading of the same reveals that in order to constitute
the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
10
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the
essential ingredients are that the victim must be a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and unless the victim is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe, no offence
punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could be
made out and for the same reason, unless the victim is a member
of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, the offence punishable
under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could not be made out.
24. As already indicated above, even if the entire allegation made in
the FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, still, the informant
has not disclosed anywhere that she belongs to any of the castes,
tribes or tribal community as mentioned in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as is applicable to the State of
Jharkhand and undisputedly, the place of occurrence is in the
District of Dumka which comes under the State of Jharkhand.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the entire allegation against the petitioner made in the
FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, still, none of the
offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) or the offence
punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made
out; in absence of any material in the record to suggest that the
informant is either a person belonging to scheduled caste or a
person belonging to scheduled tribe.
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
11
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
25. This Court also finds force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there is no statute named as SC/ST
Act, 2016 as has been mentioned in the formal FIR as well as in the
endorsement of registration of Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No.
07 of 2023 as has been made at the body of the FIR by the Officer-
in-Charge of the concerned police station and on this score also,
the registration of the FIR is bad in law, so far as the offence
punishable under Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of SC/ST Act, 2016
is concerned.
26. So far as the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute of
the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code are
:-
(a) That the person assaulted must be a woman;
(b) The accused must have used criminal force on her; and
(c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman
intending thereby to outrage her modesty or knowing the act
would likely to outrage her modestyas has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 371 : AIR 2004 SC 1677 which has
been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. U.P. reported in 2025
INSC 19.
27. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against
the petitioner is that the petitioner pushed the informant out from
his chamber being annoyed by her conduct intending to submit an
application under Right to Information Act. There is no allegation
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
12
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
against the petitioner that the petitioner assaulted or used
criminal force to the informant intending to outrage or knowing it
to be likely that it will outrage the modesty of the informant. In
the absence of essential ingredients regarding the intent of the
petitioner to outrage the modesty of the informant or the
petitioner knowing that his act would outrage the modesty of the
informant, this Court is of the considered view that even if the
entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true
in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 354 of
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
28. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code are as
under :-
(a) The accused obstructed a person;
(b) The accused did it voluntarily;
(c) The obstruction prevented such person from proceeding in
certain direction in which he had the right to proceed.
29. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner of obstructing the informant or
preventing the informant from proceeding in the direction she has
a right to proceed. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR
are considered to be true against the petitioner in its entirety, still,
the offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is
not made out.
30. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506
of Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are all non-cognizable
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
13
( 2025:JHHC:10773 )
offences. Hence, for the limited purpose of this writ petition, this
Court is not delving at length regarding the same.
31. In view of the discussions made above, as no cognizable offences
punishable in law is made out against the petitioner even if the
entire allegation made against him are considered to be true in its
entirety hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner,
who is undisputedly a public servant and the occurrence took
place when he was discharging his duty as such public servant,
will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case
where the FIR being Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023
be quashed and set aside.
32. Accordingly, the FIR being Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No.
07 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.
33. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.
34. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 20.02.2024 is
vacated.
35. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 8th April, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
W.P. (Cr.) No.1146 of 2023
14