Amal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5913 of 2025)

Amal Kumar & Ors. ...Appellants Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants arrayed as accused in FIR No.18 of 2022

in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi were before the High Court

for quashing of the FIR registered. The High Court, by the

impugned judgment refused to quash the FIR, finding that

there is a direct and specific allegation against the

appellants of having criminally conspired to interfere with

the possession of the subject land owned by the informant,

which they attempted by fabricating documents. The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

informant being a member of a scheduled caste was abused VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2025.12.09 14:27:01 IST Reason:

using the caste name and together these constitute offences

Page 1 of 7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025 punishable under Sections 3(1)(g) and (s) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

19891. The appellants’ contention that there was only a civil

dispute between the parties, pending in a civil court, was

found to be not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings

since it is trite that on the same set of facts there could be a

civil dispute and criminal case lodged.

3. Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellants submitted that the first appellant had

purchased a property from the vendee of the other

appellants in the year 2020 and was in possession of the

same. It was one Pankaj Singh who instigated the informant

to lodge the FIR and file a civil case against the appellants,

since the first appellant failed to succumb to an attempt to

extort an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from

him. In fact, the very same complainant had filed a case

against another person also at the instigation of the said

Pankaj Singh. It is contended that appellant No.1 had lodged

a complaint of interference with his property and demolition

1 for brevity ‘the Act of 1989’

Page 2 of 7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025 of the structure therein by Annexure P8 of 20.01.2022 and

the subject FIR lodged on 25.01.2025 was a counter blast.

The allegation in the FIR was regarding an alleged incident

on 21.01.2022, which occurred in the subject property. Not

only was the FIR filed belatedly on 25.01.2022 but a suit filed

on the same date, with respect to the very same property,

did not indicate such an incident having occurred.

4. Mr. Abhishek Rai, learned counsel appearing for the

informant/second respondent argued that the appellants

are involved in a racket of grabbing properties belonging

to SC/ST. Documents are fabricated and possession clearly

taken over from the informant, which led to the filing of the

criminal case. There is absolutely no reason to quash the

proceedings at this stage since the appellants would have

every right to disprove the case set up by the informant in a

trial before the Jurisdictional Court.

5. Mr. P.S. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the

State, first respondent, supported the registration of the FIR

and argued that the investigation has to be completed and

Page 3 of 7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025 submission of report by the police upon the appellants

would have their remedy before the Trial Court.

6. As we see from the records one Smt. Pratibha Jha had

purchased the subject land, from appellants 2, 3 and one

Ashraf Ansari sons of Late Moujim Ansari, by Annexure P2.

The first appellant purchased the said land from the vendee

in Annexure P2 as per Annexure P4 sale deed on 07.02.2020.

It is seen that title of the appellants 2 and 3 and one another

person was confirmed by Annexure P1 order passed by the

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as early as on 17.01.2012

after which the sale of 2014 occurred. The first appellant had

also raised a complaint as we see from Annexure P8, against

one Pankaj Singh on 20.01.2022; for attempting extortion of

money and for levelling threats against the life of the first

appellant.

7. Be that as it may, on 25.01.2022 simultaneously a suit

was filed by second respondent, produced as Annexure P9

and an FIR lodged, which is produced as Annexure P10. In

the FIR it was claimed that the appellants 2 to 5 had created

forged documents to sell the same to the first appellant who

Page 4 of 7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025 had been illegally occupying the subject land. It is also

claimed that the appellants/accused came to the subject

land on 21.01.2022 and forcefully started building a

boundary wall; presumably the contention was that the land

was in her possession. There is also a further allegation that

appellants 4 and 6 hurled abuses on the informant

specifically mentioning the caste name, which is a casteist

slur.

8. As has been argued by learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants, the plaint, Annexure P9,

registered on the same date does not indicate an incident

having occurred as is described in the First Information

Statement (FIS). In the plaint the cause of action is traced to

the month of September 2020 and several other days when

the rights of the plaintiff over the scheduled land was

attempted to be interfered with, the last of which occurrence

is said to be in December 2021. The incident as on

21.01.2022 is not at all mentioned.

9. We have also seen that the vendor of the first appellant

is not the other appellants and is a third party who has not

Page 5 of 7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025 been impleaded either in the suit or arrayed as an accused

in the criminal case lodged. Further, when there is no

allegation of dispossession of land as such in the FIS, in the

suit filed on the very same day, one of the reliefs sought is

for recovery of possession. The sale deed of the first

appellant is in the year 2020 and the other appellants

obtained the property in the year 2014. There is no relief

claimed in the suit to set aside the above sale deeds.

10. We are inclined to find that in the totality of the

circumstances as noticed above, the FIR based on the FIS is

a clear abuse of process of law. From the records of the suit

as has been filed by the first informant, the allegations in the

FIS does not come out. As of now the land is covered by a

sale deed in favour of the first appellant. There can be no

question of an offence being charged under Section 2 (3)(g)

of the Act of 1989, of wrongful dispossession of a member of

a Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe from their land.

Likewise, there is no offence as coming out under Section

3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989 since there is no allegation that the

casteist slur was made in a place within public view or that

Page 6 of 7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025 there was any member of the public present at the spot. In

any event, the allegations in the FIS itself are found to be

unbelievable going by the clear averments made in the suit

filed on the very same day. The High Court, in the

circumstances, ought to have quashed the FIR. Having not

done so we set aside the order of the High Court and quash

FIR No.18 of 2020 registered in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi

and direct that no further proceedings shall be taken by the

police against the arrayed accused in pursuance of the said

FIR. The appeal stands allowed.

11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

……....…….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

...………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 09, 2025.

Page 7 of 7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025