Patna High Court

MD. REYAZversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The High Court held that the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act or the IPC and quashed the charge‑framing order.

Summary

The appellants sought to quash the charge‑framing order in a case arising from a land‑sale dispute where the informant alleged threats, gunpoint intimidation and caste‑based abuse. The High Court examined whether the alleged acts fell within the ambit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and found that the core dispute was civil, with no evidence of intentional insult or intimidation on the basis of caste as required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s). Relying on precedents such as Keshaw Mahto and Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act or the IPC. Consequently, the order of cognizance and charge‑framing dated 28‑04‑2022 was quashed. The application under Section 227 of the CrPC was allowed, and the proceedings were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act, particularly Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w).
Whether the dispute is essentially civil and therefore does not attract criminal prosecution.
Whether the High Court can quash the charge‑framing order under its inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC/Article 142 Constitution).

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 227, 482
Constitution of India — s. Article 142
Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 409, 419, 420, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)

Subjects

quash petition
Section 227 CrPC
SC/ST Act
land dispute
civil vs criminal
caste based atrocity
Section 3(1)(r)
Section 3(1)(s)
Section 482 CrPC
Article 142
Bhajan Lal guidelines

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2350 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2017 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR District-
Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Md. Reyaz Son of Late Md. Allauddin Resident of Village-Bhalni, P.S.-
Mabbi O.P., Sadar, District-Darbhanga.
2. Md. Mehtab Alam @ Md. Mahtab Son of Late Abrar Alam @ Md. Abrar.
Resident of Village-Bhalni, P.S.-Mabbi O.P., Sadar, District-Darbhanga.
3. Rehana Khatoon Wife of Late Md. Rakib Alam Resident of Village-
Shahwazpur, P.S.-Mabbi O.P., Sadar, District-Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mohan Kumar Mahto Son of Sri Sitaram Mahto Resident of Village-
Gehumi, P.S.-Sadar (Mabbi O.P.), District-Darbhanga (Informant)

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Adv
: Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Adv
: Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari No. 1, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 25-02-2026

Heard the parties.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred

to quash the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in SC/ST/GR Case

No. 33 of 2017 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 137 of 2017

passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive

SC/ST(POA) Act, Darbhanga, where learned Exclusive Special

Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act rejected the application of the

appellants filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for not framing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
2/11

the charge against them for the offence under Sections 409, 420,

419, 504, 506 and 120(B) of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the

SC/ST (POA) Act.

3. FIR speaks that, Mohan Kumar Mahto (informant)

submitted a written information on 07.04.2017 to the Officer In-

Charge of Mabbi O.P. (Sadar) police station stating that he was

intended to purchase a residential land and in that connection, on

29.3.2016, Md. Reyaz and Md. Rakib Alam approached him

claiming they want to sell three kathas of land at Mauza Bishanpur

Kalyan @ Gehuni, registered in the names of Rakib Alam and his

wife Rehana. After visiting and inspecting the land with Badri

Prasad Mahansaria, the consideration amount was settled for

₹28,00,000/- per katha. He paid a total of ₹20,00,000/- through

cash and cheques in the names of Rakib Alam and Rehana. An

agreement was executed on ₹1,000/- stamp paper on

02.04.2016, signed by Rakib Alam, Rehana, and Reyaz as

identifier, in the presence of witnesses. Later, when Mahto asked

them to execute the sale deed after arranging the remaining

money, they kept delaying, assuring to execute sale deed very

soon or to refund with interest. On 09.03.2017 at about 10 PM,

Reyaz, Rakib Alam, and five others allegedly came to his house,

threatened him at gunpoint, refused both registry and refund, and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
3/11

abused him using caste name. Rakib Alam also allegedly claimed a

different identity and confessed involvement in a prior murder.

Fearing for his life and family, informant approached police against

the accused and also for recovery of his ₹20/- lakh.

4. Aforesaid written report was forwarded to SHO

Sadar Police Station and on that basis a formal FIR was lodged

which has been registered as Darbhanga Sadar P.S. Case No. 137

of 2017 dated 08.04.2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 386, 387 and 120(B) of the IPC and

Sections 3(i)(s), 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(w) of the SC/ST Act. After

investigation police submitted charge-sheet no. 487 of 2019 dated

28.08.2019 and thereafter learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took

cognizance, accordingly.

5. Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, learned counsel for the

appellants submitted that at the stage of framing of charge the

appellants filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of

the Cr.P.C. praying therein that no offence under the SC/ST Act or

under the IPC made out against them in the present case, as the

core issue is land dispute arising out of oral agreement, where

petitioner no. 2 was implicated only for the reason as he was

witness of the agreement of sale, petitioner no. 3 was implicated

being the wife of Md. Rakib Alam. It is submitted that there is no
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
4/11

occasion to implicate petitioner no. 2 namely Md. Mehtab Alam @

Md. Mehtab. It is further submitted by Mr. Thakur that even the

abuse in the caste name as per FIR is just to aggravate the

allegation as to implicate the appellants for the offences

punishable under the Sections 3(i)(s), 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(w) of the

SC/ST Act.

6. Mr. Thakur, further submitted that as per FIR, only

“caste related abuse” was alleged to made during the

occurrence without specifying any caste. It is further submitted

that the occurrence alleged to be taken place at about 10:00 PM

inside the house, therefore, allegation qua abusing in public view is

not appears convincing. Arguing further, it is submitted that

neither sale deed is executed nor money was paid hence, no

offence under the Indian Penal Code is made out. In this

connection learned counsel relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court

report available through the matter of Murarilal Gupta Vs. Gopi

Singh, [(2005) 13 SCC 699.

7. It is further submitted that, in-fact informant

himself is the land broker and he lodged this criminal case for

putting pressure, against appellants. It is further submitted that no

money has been transferred in the accounts of any of the three

appellants and as such they are not beneficiary out of alleged land
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
5/11

deal. Mr. Thakur, relied upon the reports of Hon’ble Supreme

Court as available through Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar

Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Another, [SLP (Crl.) No. 12144

of 2025] and also State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan

Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court

Cases 335. Mr. Thakur, further relied upon the legal report of

Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Gulam Mustafa vs.

State of Karnataka and Anr. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 603].

8. It would be apposite at this stage to reproduce

paragraph no(s). 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Keshaw

Mahto Case (supra) for better understanding of the case,

which is as under:-

11. This Court in Shajan Skaria v. The State of
Kerala & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, laid
down the ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. It reads thus:-
“55. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are:
a. Accused person must not be a member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; b. Accused
must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
c. Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate
such a person; and
d. Accused must do so at any place within public
view.”
12. Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
6/11

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. In other
words, the offence under 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.
13. To put it briefly - first, the fact that the
complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. Secondly, any
insult or intimidation towards the complainant must
be on the account of such person being a member of
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
14. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity,
we deem it appropriate to mention that even mere
knowledge of the fact that the complainant is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).
15. Further, 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.
16. In other words, 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. Thus, the allegations must reveal
that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste
name had been hurled as an abuse.

9. It would be apposite at this stage to reproduce

paragraph no. 34 of the Gulam Mustafa Case (supra) for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
7/11

better understanding of the case, which is as under:-

34. Insofar and inasmuch as interference in cases
involving the SC/ST Act is concerned, we may only
point out that a 3-Judge Bench of this Court, in
Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 966, has held that the mere fact that the
offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would
not inhibit this Court or the High Court from
exercising their respective powers under Article 142
of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code, in
the terms below:

“15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising
out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the
Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach.
The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to
deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment
against members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. The SC/ST Act is also a
recognition of the depressing reality that despite
undertaking several measures, the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to
various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The
Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the SC/ST
Act has been enacted keeping in view the express
constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15,
17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold
objective of protecting the members of these
vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief
and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based
atrocities.

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the
Court that the offence in question, although covered
under the SC/ST Act, is primarily civil or private
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
8/11

where the alleged offence has not been committed
on account of the caste of the victim, or where the
continuation of the legal proceedings would be an
abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise
its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar
lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the
basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is
satisfied that the underlying objective of the SC/ST
Act would not be contravened or diminished even if
the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere
fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special
statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High
Court, from exercising their respective powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.
P.C.”

10. It would also be apposite to reproduce the

paragraph no. 102 of the Apex Court decision in the case of

Bhajan Lal Case (supra) which reads as under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
9/11

list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of nay offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
10/11

or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

11. Coming to the case in hand, it appears that

dispute between the parties are civil in nature arising out of

agreement related with land deal, where appellants are not the

beneficiary and moreover, in view of aforesaid discussions qua

making out a case for the offence under SC/ST Act, particularly in

view of Keshaw Mahto Case (supra), no case for the aforesaid

offence is made out.

12. Accordingly, by taking note of guidelines as

mentioned in para nos. 1, 5 and 7 of Bhajan Lal (supra),

impugned order of discharge along with cognizance order dated

28.04.2022 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, all above

named appellants arising thereof as passed in in SC/ST/GR Case

No. 33 of 2017 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 137 of 2017,

pending before learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Exclusive SC/ST(POA) Act, Darbhanga is hereby quashed and set

aside.

13. Hence, this application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2350 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
11/11

14. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to the

learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date 25.02.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…