Patna High Court
SURAJ THAKURversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The prosecution was malafide and the order taking cognizance, along with all consequent proceedings, was quashed.
Summary
The appellant Suraj Thakur was charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for an alleged assault on an informant’s sister and the informant on 7 February 2021. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated and that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out. The High Court examined the prosecution’s case and concluded that the proceedings were motivated by personal enmity and represented a misuse of the SC/ST Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the prosecution was malafide. Consequently, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge taking cognizance was set aside and all related proceedings were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is malafide and liable to be quashed
- Whether the alleged facts constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act
- Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge taking cognizance of the offences is valid
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354, 504/34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- malafide prosecution
- caste discrimination
- quashing of proceedings
- criminal appeal
- personal enmity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1408 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Darbhanga
======================================================
SURAJ THAKUR Son of Late Awadh Thakur Resident of village - Jalley,
P.S.- Jalley, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dilip Mallik Son of Singheshwar Mallik Resident of village - Jalley, P.S.-
Jalley Haat, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Iqbal Asif Niazi, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Kedar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
19 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special P.P. for the State.
2. Since Mr. Kedar Jha, learned Advocate had
appeared for the same informant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.
1365/2022, he requested this Court to argue this case and he is
allowed to do the same.
3. This appeal has been preferred for quashing the
order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1st -cum-Special Judge (SC/ST {P.O.A} Act),
Darbhanga in SC/ST G.R. Case No. 35/2021 arising out of
Darbhanga (Sadar) SC/ST P.S. Case No. 12/2021 whereby and
whereunder cognizance of the offences under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1408 of 2022(19) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
341, 323, 354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3(i)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act has been taken against the
appellant and five others.
4. As per the prosecution case, on February 7,
2021, co-accused Suraj Thakur dragged the informant’s sister
Gudiya Kumari (19 years) toward his car. When the informant
intervened, all named accused and 4-5 unknown armed persons
arrived, abused him by caste name, and assaulted him and his
family members with deadly weapons.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in
this case and no offence is made out against the appellant under
the SC/ST Act.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has opposed the
prayer of the appellant and has supported the impugned order.
7. I have gone through the order taking cognizance
and from the same it appears that the present case has been filed
because of personal enmity and the provisions of the SC/ST Act
have been misused. So from the allegations levelled against the
accused persons, it appears that no offence has been committed
with the informant who belongs to Scheduled Caste with an
intention that it was being done on the ground of caste.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1408 of 2022(19) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
8. In view of the above, the prosecution of the
appellant is malafide and the same cannot be allowed in view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 72 and State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal &
Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335.
9. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the
order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1st -cum-Special Judge SC/ST (P.O.A) Act,
Darbhanga in SC/ST G.R. Case No. 35/2021 arising out of
Darbhanga (Sadar) SC/ST P.S. Case No. 12/2021 and all
consequential proceedings arising out of the same are hereby
quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…