PATNA, India, April 16 -- Patna High Court issued the following order on March 16:

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.5.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-1 cum Special Judge SC/ST Katihar in Complaint Case No. 220 of 2024 whereby learned Special Court has taken cognizance only against section 504 of the IPC on the ground that prima facie case of other sections i.e. 323, 341, 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is not made out.

2. The brief fact giving rise to the present appeal is that the appellant filed a complaint case bearing CA No. 220 of 2024 on 31.01.2024 under section 323, 341, 420, 406, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act against six named accused persons including respondent No. 2 alleging therein that complainant was having four decimals of land situated at Mouja Raunia, Khata No. 860, Khesra No. 3575, for which basgit parcha was given in favour of the complainant. A pakka house has been constructed by the complainant on the land in question, in which the complainant is residing with his family members.

3. On the date of occurrence, respondent no. 2 along with other accused persons arrived, abusing in the name of his caste name, told the complainant to vacate the land in question, failing which he would be killed. The complainant was examined on SA along with two inquiry witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Special Court erred in not taking cognizance under other Sections of IPC and the Section 3 (i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act inasmuch as from perusal of the statement of the complainant on SA as well as the statement of the witnesses examined during inquiry, it would be evident that the the complainant was abused by the accused persons, including respondent No. 2, in his caste name. There was sufficient material against the respondent No. 2 to take cognizance under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the State argued that from perusal of the order of cognizance, it would be evident that the learned Special Court after considering the statement of the complainant on SA and the statement of the witnesses have taken cognizance under Section 504 of the IPC only. From the statement on SA and statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the abuse by the caste name was not taken in full public view and there was a dispute regarding land between both the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record, including the statement of the complainant on SA and the statement of the witnesses annexed along with this appeal.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/vieworder/MjQjMjkzMyMyMDI0IzYjTg==-SWZsIn3GdwI=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.