Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The order taking cognizance against the appellant is not sustainable and is quashed.
Summary
The appellant Sanjay Kumar Singh was charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST Act based on an FIR alleging that he danced while intoxicated at a marriage procession and that a co‑accused used caste slurs against the informant. The appellant contended that the FIR was retaliatory, filed after he lodged his own FIR, and that there was no material linking him to any caste‑based abuse or other offences. The police investigation concluded with a final report exonerating him, but the Special Judge nonetheless took cognizance of the charges. The High Court examined the FIR, the investigation report, and the lack of prima facie evidence against the appellant, finding that the cognizance was taken mechanically and without sufficient basis. Consequently, the Court quashed the order of cognizance, holding that proceeding would cause a miscarriage of justice, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether cognizance can be taken against the appellant in the absence of prima facie material linking him to the alleged offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the FIR alleging caste‑based abuse against the appellant is sufficient to sustain charges under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether taking cognizance despite the police exoneration violates principles of natural justice and amounts to an abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 504, 506, 509
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- quash order
- retaliatory FIR
- prima facie evidence
- miscarriage of justice
- criminal procedure
- intoxication
- caste based offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1894 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2022 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o- Munnu Singh Village- Kapeya
PS- Alipur Dist- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pramila Devi wife of Santosh Das Village- Kapeya Ps- Alipur dist- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Indu Shekhar Dwivedi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the Special Public Prosecutor for the SC/ST.
2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing
the cognizance order, dated 14.08.2023, passed by learned
Special Judge SC/ST, Gaya, in SC/ST Police Station Case No.
14 of 2022, dated 15.06.2022, whereby learned Special Judge
SC/ST, Gaya, has taken cognizance against the appellant under
Sections 341/323/354/509/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the
informant/respondent no. 2 gave her fardbeyan on 15.06.2022
alleging therein that on 12.06.2022 at about 06:30 in the evening
she was watching a marriage procession in the house of one
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1894 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
2/6
Mithlesh Prasad, in the meantime the appellant Sanjay Kumar
Singh started dancing in intoxicated condition and moved
towards the informant. When the informant moved backwards
and obejcted the manner in which the appellant was dancing, the
co-accused Bipin Kumar started abusing her by caste name and
tore her saree also.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
from perusal of the First Information Report and the materials
collected during course of investigation, no offence is made out,
much less any offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va)
of the SC/ST Act. There is no allegation against the appellant
that he abused the informant by her caste name and/or assaulted
her and tried to outrage her modesty. The only allegation in the
First Information Report is that the appellant started dancing in
barat party (marriage procession) in intoxicated condition.
5. Learned counsel next submits that the present
First Information Report has been lodged in retaliation of the
First Information Report lodged by the side of the appellant
inasmuch as on 12.06.2022 at 05:00 PM in the evening, the
mother of the co-accused Gautam Kumar lodged First
Information Report, bearing Alipur Police Station Case No. 87
of 2022, for the offences under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1894 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
3/6
147/148/341/323/354/379/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal
Code against the accused persons, including informant’s
husband, and other family members, stating therein, that while
she was going to worship in Shiv Mandir with Maur Shehra
along with 12-15 ladies, all the accused persons, including the
husband of the informant, having iron-rod, lathi, etc, arrived
near transformer and abused and started pulling her. Upon noise
being made, the brother-in-law of informant, namely, Dayanand
Singh, Sunny Kumar, Ravi Kumar and Arun Kumar came to
save her. Then accused Dhananjay Kumar, with an intention to
kill, assaulted on the head of Dayanand Singh, who sustained
serious head injury and started bleeding and Sunny Kumar also
sustained serious head injury. Accused Dinesh Ram and Baiju
Das snatched gold mangal sutra. The injured persons were
admitted in ANMC Hosptial, Gaya.
6. The First Information Report was lodged on
13.06.2022 by the side of the appellant, in which, the appellant’s
son sustained injury and after lodging of the First Information
Report on 13.06.2022, retaliatory First Information Report has
been lodged by the side of the informant on 15.06.2022. The
First Information Report, in question, is completely retaliatory
in nature and based on concocted story and was lodged after a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1894 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
4/6
delay of 03 days.
7. The case was investigated by the Investigation
Officer and during course of investigation no material came
against the appellant to connect him with the present offence.
Accordingly, the police submitted final form against accused
persons exonerating the appellant from the charges. However,
learned Special Court differed with the final form and took
cognizance on 14.08.2022 against the appellant along with
others without any material available on record.
8. Referring to the case dairy, learned counsel
submits that in the First Information Report as well as during
course of investigation, no material has come against the
appellant to connect him with the offences inasmuch as only
statement which has come against the appellant in the entire
First Information Report and during course of investigation is
that he was dancing in the marriage procession in intoxicated
condition. There is no allegation and/or prima facie material to
show that the appellant abused the informant by her caste name
and/or assaulted her.
9. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on
behalf of the respondent no. 2.
10. Learned counsel for the State argued that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1894 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
5/6
learned Special Court has taken cognizance against the appellant
after differing with the police report. He next submits that there
is no infirmity in the order taken cognizance.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the materials available on record,
including the impugned order.
12. From the First Information Report, it appears
that the allegation against the appellant is that he was dancing in
the marriage procession near the informant which was objected
by her. There is no allegation in the First Information Report
that the appellant abused the informant in full public view by
taking her caste name and the allegation of abuse by caste name
is upon one Bipin Kumar, who is the co-accused. During course
of investigation, the restatement of the informant was recorded,
in which, she has merely reiterated the statement made in the
First Information Report and 02 witnesses which were examined
during course of investigation have also reiterated the statement
made by the informant in the First Information Report.
13. From perusal of the statement made in the
First Information Report and materials collected during course
of investigation, prima facie no offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)
(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST and/or under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1894 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
6/6
341/323/354/509/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code Act is
made out against the appellant.
14. Learned Special Court took cognizance of the
offences after differing with the police report without any
cogent materials available on record and in mechanical manner.
15. Allowing the prosecution to continue against
the appellant will cause miscarriage of justice in abuse of
process of court.
16. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the
order taking cognizance, dated 14.08.2023, passed by learned
Special Judge SC/ST, Gaya, in connection with SC/ST Police
Station Case No. 14 of 2022 is not sustainable. In the result
order taking cognizance qua the appellant is hereby quashed.
17. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U T
Checking your session…