Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar @ Bittu SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court set aside the order taking cognizance under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but upheld cognizance under the IPC offences, allowing the trial to proceed.
Summary
The appellants were accused of assaulting Mahendra Chaudhary over a disputed tent rental for a marriage ceremony, with the complainant alleging theft, physical assault, and caste-based abuse. The FIR was lodged three years after the incident, and the appellants contended that the FIR was false, citing a receipt showing a higher advance payment and denying any public caste humiliation. The Special Judge took cognizance of offences under several IPC sections and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act without providing reasons or referring to investigative material. On appeal, the High Court held that there was no material to sustain the SC/ST offences, setting aside that part of the order, but found a prima facie case for the IPC offences and allowed the trial to proceed. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, quashing the cognizance under the SC/ST Act while upholding it under the IPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the Special Judge could validly take cognizance of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the absence of evidence of public caste‑based humiliation.
- Whether the Special Judge was required to give reasons for diverging from the police final report that exonerated the appellants.
- Whether a prima facie case exists under the IPC sections (341, 323, 325, 504, 506, 379) to permit trial of the appellants.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 341, 379, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- assault
- cognizance
- false FIR
- rent dispute
- public view
- prima facie case
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1665 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2024 Thana- KHUDWA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar @ Bittu Sharma S/o- Rajkumar Sharma Village PS-
Khudwan District- Aurangabad
2. Mitthu Sharma @ Rangdar Sharma S/o- Rajkumar Sharma Village PS-
Khudwan District- Aurangabad
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mahendra Chaudhary S/o- Badhu Chaudhary Village PS- Khudwan District-
Aurangabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, App.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Chandra Bhaskar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
8 17-03-2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellants against the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge cum Additional District Judge-1st, Aurangabad in
G.R. Case No. 86 of 2024 arising out of Khudwan P.S. Case No.
41 of 2024, whereby the learned Special Judge has taken
cognizance against the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 325,
504, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of
the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
2. As per the prosecution case, one Mahendra
Chaudhary lodged an FIR before the Khudawan Police Station
alleging therein that on 22.04.2021, he had installed a tent in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
2/9
marriage ceremony of son of co-accused Raj Kumar Sharma.
Rs. 15,000/- was fixed as rental out of which Rs. 5,000/- was
given in cash as advance and Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid
subsequently. The informant tried to realize the dues amount but
for the last three years, only assurance was being given by the
accused persons under false pretext. On 09.05.2024, when the
informant went to demand his dues amount, at about eight
o'clock, then co-accused Raj Kumar Sharma and appellants
assaulted him with lathi, rods, etc. The informant was attacked
due to which he fell down. It has subsequently been alleged that
Rs. 3,000/- was snatched from the pocket of the informant and
he was also abused by his caste name and was also threatened of
his life.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that due
to dispute regarding payment of rent to the informant who had
installed tent during marriage ceremony of the appellants, the
present FIR has been lodged. Admittedly, tent was installed on
22.04.2021 and the FIR was lodged after three years saying that
when the informant went to collect his due amount, he was
assaulted and was abused by his caste name.
4. Referring to Annexure-2 to the memo of appeal
learned counsel submits that falsity of the FIR would be evident
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
3/9
that in the FIR, the informant is saying that only Rs. 5,000/- was
given by the co-accused Raj Kumar Sharma at the time of
entering into an agreement for supply of tent, but from perusal
of Annexure-2, which is the cash memo/receipt given by the son
of the informant, it has specifically been mentioned that a sum
of Rs. 13,000/- was paid as advance out of the total agreed
amount of Rs 15,000/-.
5. The FIR was lodged with a malice intention to
settle the score with the appellants due to money dispute. No
specific allegation is there in the FIR that the informant was
abused by the appellants by his caste name in full public view
with an intent to humiliate the informant. No cogent material
has come during course of investigation to connect the
appellants with the present offence, particularly offence under
Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
6. Attacking the order taking cognizance dated
12.09.2024, learned counsel submits that police after
investigation submitted final form exonerating the appellants
and not sending them for trial. The learned Special Court
differed with the final form and took cognizance against the
appellants under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506, 379 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
4/9
Prevention of Atrocities Act, in mechanical manner and without
giving any brief reasons. From bare perusal of the impugned
order, it would appear that the learned Special Court has not
mentioned, even in brief, the materials collected during the
investigation, warranting order of cognizance of the offences
under I.P.C. and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. No
offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out
against the appellants, particularly offence under section 3(i)(r)s
under which the cognizance has been taken by the learned court,
in mechanical manner. No allegation is there that the occurrence
has taken place in full public view with the intention to
denigrate the status of the informant. On the contrary, dispute
arose between the parties on the point of payment of rent
towards the hiring of the tent by the side of the appellants.
7. A counter case has also been lodged by the mother
of the appellants on the same day bearing Khudwan P.S. Case
No. 42 of 2024 for an occurrence which has taken place on the
same date and time.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, as
well as respondent no. 2, argued that the Special Judge has
power to differ with the police report and has rightly taken
cognizance under the offences, including the offences under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
5/9
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the appellants.
Referring to the case diary, learned counsel submits that the
informant has suffered injury for which doctor has examined the
informant and X-ray was also held of his body. The informant as
well as one independent witness Amarjit have supported the
prosecution story that appellants along with accused persons
assaulted the informant by lathi, danda, by abusing his caste
name.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that three other witnesses have not supported the prosecution
story and has said that whatever injury has been caused by the
informant was due to free fall on “Nadh”.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record, including
the impugned order.
11. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that the learned Special Judge, while taking cognizance, has not
given any reasons for differing with the police report, who
submitted final form, not sending the appellants for trial. The
materials collected during course of investigation have also not
been referred in the order impugned by the learned Special
Judge. However, this Court went through the materials collected
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
6/9
during investigation and found that there is no material to show
that abuse by the caste name was taken in public view.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Keshaw Mehto alias
Keshaw Kumar Mehto v. State of Bihar and another
reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 62, in para 12 and 16, has
dealt with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) and has said that Section
3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or
intimidation by the accused is that the person who is subjected
to is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. It has
been said that Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact
that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation is
with the intention to humiliate such a member of the
community. The fact that the complainant belonged to the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. Any
insult or intimidation towards the complainant must be on
account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe.
13. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that with a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity, it is
appropriate to mention that even mere knowledge of the fact
that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
7/9
Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).
14. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that for an offence to be made out under section 3(1)(s),
merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe would not be enough. At the same time, saying caste name
would also not constitute an offence. To constitute an offence
under Section 3(1)(s), it would be necessary that the accused
abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe "by
the caste name" in any place within public view. The allegations
must reveal that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste
name had been hurled as an abuse.
15. In the present case, the FIR starts with the fact that
the quarrel took place between the informant and the appellants'
side due to money dispute inasmuch as, according to the
informant, the appellants' side owe a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the
informant in relation to the service of supplying tent rendered by
the informant to the appellants' side during marriage ceremony.
The counter case was also lodged by the side of the appellants.
The occurrence has taken place on the door of the appellants,
which is not a place within public view. The intent with which
the abuses were hurled, as per the allegation, was not with an
intention to humiliate the informant in full public view. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
8/9
appellant did not abuse the informant with a feeling of caste-
based humiliation.
16. Taking note of the aforesaid discussion, this Court
is of the opinion that there is no material to take cognizance
against the appellants under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As such, the order taking
cognizance against the appellants for offences under Section
3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot
sustain and is hereby set aside.
17. Insofar as cognizance taken against the appellants
under sections of IPC, from the records as well as the case diary,
it appears that there is an allegation against the appellants that
they assaulted the informant by lathi along with other accused
persons. During course of investigation, the informant was
examined by the doctor also. The nature of injury sustained by
the informant is not important at this stage. The factum of the
occurrence is further corroborated by the fact that a counter case
was also lodged by the side of the appellants against the
informant.
18. In the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand and another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 in
paragraph 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred a judgment
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1665 of 2025(8) dt.17-03-2026
9/9
rendered in Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. in which the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no prohibition
under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part.
19. During course of investigation, the victim along
with other witnesses have supported the prosecution story that
the informant was assaulted.
20. In view of the above facts and the materials
available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
prima facie case is made out against the appellants under the
provisions of the I.P.C. and the appellants can be tried by the
Competent Court for the offences under I.P.C. in accordance
with law.
21. The present appeal is partly allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U
Checking your session…