D.K.SINHA,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel, in both the petitions. However, none appeared on behalf of the O.P.No.2.
(2.) BOTH the petitions are taken up together arising out of same and similar cause of action, as the petitioners have prayed for quashment of their entire criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, Ranchi arising out of Ranchi (Sadar) Kotwali P.S. Case No. 266 of 2004 corresponding to G.R.No. 1455 of 2004. The brief fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 Shibu Kachhap presented a written statement before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi that his ancestral raiyati land situated at Mouza Chadari, Khata No.3, Plot Nos. 8,9 and 10, area .75 decimal was illegally dispossessed by five accused persons including the petitioner by making forged documents. It was further alleged that though there was an order in favour of opposite party no.2 but with the power of money and muscle men they used to restrain him from going upon his land. He had sent several petitions to the concerned officers of the different departments but the accused persons obtained their favour against the extraneous consideration. On the basis of such written statements, a case as aforesaid was instituted for the offence under Section 3 (IV), (V) and (VIII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 and investigation of the case was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City.
(3.) THE other accused of Sadar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 266 of 2004 with the similar allegation had preferred Cr.M.P.No.625 of 2004 with the similar relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of his criminal proceeding and this Court by the order dated 12.04.2006 dealing all the aspects as also appreciating the documents advanced on behalf of the parties observed: - " The main allegation is that the informant/ opposite party no.2 has been dispossessed by as many as five persons including the petitioner which prima facie attracts offence under section 3(IV), (V) and (VIII) of the Act punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years or fine. Further allegation is that the informant has been dispossessed by the accused persons including the petitioner by creating forged documents of his raiyati land and that he was restrained from going upon his land but the documents which have been produced on behalf of the petitioner speaks otherwise. The First Information Report indicates that the fathers name of the informant Sibu Kacchap was late Etwa Oaon. It appears from the Xerox copy of the certified copy of the decree prepared in Title Suit No. 27 of 1962 in which Abhay Kumar Sahu was plaintiff and father of the informant Etwa Oraon was the defendant that it was based upon the joint compromise petition as given in scheduled of the suit property in which it was admitted that the suit land was sold to Abhay Kumar Sahu for a consideration of Rs.99/ -in September, 1940 by Sukre Uraon, i.e. husband of the defendant no.2 and Sonoo Uraon, husband of defendant no.3 as well as Etwa Oraon the father of the informant orally and since then plaintiff was coming in absolute and uninterrupted possession of the suit land and that the plaintiff acquired full and perfect title by the adverse possession over the suit property for more than 20 years since 1940. It was further undertaken which was a part of decree that defendant would not disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and would not challenge his title in the suit land hereafter. Subsequently, the said land was transferred by registered sale deed in the name of Gouri Shankar Sahu in the year 1962 and since then there was no litigation over the suit land in question until the filing of SAR Case No.11 of 1975 by the informant Sibu Kachhap in which it was admitted that he was not in possession of the land since 1962, though it was decided in favour of the informant Sibu Kachhap and the appeal as well as revision were also decided in his favour against which a writ, vide C.W.J.C.No.714 of 1987(R) was preferred in which the informant/opposite party no.2 appeared and the case was remanded back, vide order dated 24.04.1991. Pursuant to the direction made in C.W.J.C.No.714 of 1987(R) the lower court decided the issues in favour of the accused persons, vide order dated 12.1.2000 as discussed herein above as contained in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts and the annexures of the present petition and the supplementary petition filed on affidavit there appears substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the present case was brought about by the opposite party no.2 suppressing material facts of his alleged dispossession. On the contrary, the annexures of the petitions speak otherwise in favour of the petitioner as discussed above. The allegation that the informant -opposite party no.2 has been dispossessed in spite of the favourable order of the courts concerned and that the accused persons including the petitioner forcibly dispossessed him on the basis of forged documents do not stand to the truth in any manner and, therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner calls for interference of this Court. Accordingly, the prosecution initiated against the petitioner Gouri Shankar Sahu who stands at serial no.3 of the accused column in Ranchi Sadar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 266 of 2004, corresponding to G.R.Case No. 1455 of 2004, pending in the court of special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands quashed with consequential effect. This petition is allowed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the defence of the petitioner also stands on similar footing, the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners Champa Devi (in Cr.M.P.No.399 of 2005) and Keshav Prasad Sahu, Rajendra Prasad Sahu, Nand Kishore Prasad Sahu (in Cr.M.P.No.536 of 2005) in Ranchi (Sadar) Kotwali P.S. Case No. 266 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1455 of 2004 pending before the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are quashed. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed.;