Patna High Court
MANOJ THAKURversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the allegations do not fall within the ambit of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and there is insufficient material to prosecute under the IPC, leading to the quashment of the trial court’s order.
Summary
The appellants Manoj, Harishchandra and Sunil Thakur were charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC sections for allegedly threatening a complainant over a land dispute involving a temple for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The trial court took cognizance of the offences and ordered prosecution. The appellants contended that the matter was a civil land dispute and did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the High Court examined the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, emphasizing the need for intentional insult or intimidation on the basis of caste and occurring in public view. It held that the alleged conduct was related to a property dispute, lacked the requisite caste‑based humiliation, and was not in public view, thus falling outside the scope of the Act and lacking sufficient material for IPC charges. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the trial court’s order was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged intimidation and threats in a land dispute constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the conduct satisfies the requirement of ‘public view’ under the Act.
- Whether the matter is a civil dispute and therefore not cognizable under the SC/ST Act or the IPC provisions invoked.
- Whether there is sufficient material to prosecute the appellants under the IPC sections listed.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 504, 527
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- Intimidation
- Land dispute
- Caste based offence
- Public view
- IPC offences
- Quash order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1101 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2020 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. MANOJ THAKUR S/o Harishchandra Thakur Resident of Village-
Shivipatti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.
2. HARISHCHANDRA THAKUR S/o Late Kailu Thakur Resident of Village-
Shivipatti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.
3. SUNIL THAKUR @ SUNIL KUMAR JHA S/o Dhaneshwar Jha Resident
of Village- Shivipatti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar
2. RAMDEO PASWAN S/o Late Mauji Paswan Resident of Village- Shivipatti,
P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 02-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is filed against the order dated
08.09.2021 passed by learned Court of Additional Sessions
Judge- 1st-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Madhubani in C.R.
54/2020, T.R. 1404/2021 whereby and whereunder cognizance
of offence under Sections 323, 341, 527, 504, 379/34 I.P.C. and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the appellants.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the
complainant and appellants are co-villagers. A Saleh Temple for
SC/ST people exists adjacent to appellant no. 1’s land. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1101 of 2022(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/6
appellant wanted to encroach the temple’s land. When the
community opposed this, the appellants threatened the
complainant with dire consequences and a Panchayat was held
that found the appellants guilty.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the learned
Special Court SC/St Act, Madhubani took cognizance of offence
on 08.09.2021 and summoned the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is
case of civil dispute and no offence under Section SC/ST Act is
made out.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
for the appellant has relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in case of Hitesh Verma Versus State of
Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.
7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the appellants and has supported the impugned order.
8. I have heard and considered the submission of
the parties.
9. Further, in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under:
11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet
filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)
(x) of the Act. The said section stands
substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26-1-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1101 of 2022(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/6
2016. The substituted corresponding
provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads
as under:
“3. (1)(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;”
12. The basic ingredients of the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be
classified as
“(1) intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and (2) in
any place within public
view”.
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
Act would indicate the ingredient of
intentional insult and intimidation with
an intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
All insults or intimidations to a person
will not be an offence under the Act
unless such insult or intimidation is on
account of victim belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of
the Act is to improve the socio-economic
conditions of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied
number of civil rights. Thus, an offence
under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the
society is subjected to indignities,
humiliations and harassment. The
assertion of title over the land by either
of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment.
Every citizen has a right to avail their
remedies in accordance with law.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1101 of 2022(5) dt.02-02-2026
4/6
Therefore, if the appellant or his family
members have invoked jurisdiction of the
civil court, or that Respondent 2 has
invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court,
then the parties are availing their
remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such
action is not for the reason that
Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled
Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is
insult or intimidation in “any place
within public view”. What is to be
regarded as “place in public view” had
come up for consideration before this
Court in the judgment reported as
Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v.
State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC
(Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression
“public place” and “in any place within
public view”. It was held that if an
offence is committed outside the building
e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall,
then the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. On the contrary, if
the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then it
would not be an offence since it is not in
the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence
appears to be contrary to what is stated
below in the extract from Swaran Singh,
(2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in
the application of this principle in para
15, below:“Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1101 of 2022(5) dt.02-02-2026
5/6
public view.”] . The Court held as
under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR
that Vinod Nagar, the first informant,
was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3
(by calling him a “chamar”) when he
stood near the car which was parked
at the gate of the premises. In our
opinion, this was certainly a place
within public view, since the gate of a
house is certainly a place within
public view. It could have been a
different matter had the alleged
offence been committed inside a
building, and also was not in the
public view. However, if the offence is
committed outside the building e.g. in
a lawn outside a house, and the lawn
can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary
wall, the lawn would certainly be a
place within the public view. Also,
even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view.
We must, therefore, not confuse the
expression “place within public
view” with the expression “public
place”. A place can be a private
place but yet within the public view.
On the other hand, a public place
would ordinarily mean a place which
is owned or leased by the
Government or the municipality (or
other local body) or gaon sabha or
an instrumentality of the State, and
not by private persons or private
bodies.” (emphasis in original)
10. In view of the afore-quoted Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon reading of the complaint
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1101 of 2022(5) dt.02-02-2026
6/6
petition, it is clear that the abuses has taken place for occurrence
relating to land and therefore, the provisions of SC/ST Act will
not be applicable.
11. From the reading of the complaint case and
from the discussions made herein above, it appears that there is
no sufficient material against the appellants for which they shall
be prosecuted under the provisions of IPC.
12. Considering the aforesaid, this appeal is
allowed.
13. Accordingly, the order dated 08.09.2021 passed
by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge- 1st-cum-
Special Judge SC/ST Act, Madhubani in C.R. 54/2020, T.R.
1404/2021, is hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…