Patna High Court
SURENDRA MOHAN SINGH @ PINTU SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The High Court held that the cognizance against the appellant under Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act is bad in law and quashed that portion of the charge‑sheet.
Summary
The appellant, Surendra Mohan Singh, was charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 54 and Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting and robbing an informant after a road‑accident. He filed a petition to quash the order of cognizance dated 06‑07‑2022, contending that the FIR lacked any allegation of caste‑based insult, that he was not aware of the victim’s SC/ST status, and that there was insufficient material linking him to the theft. The State argued that factual disputes should be decided at trial and that the magistrate’s cognizance was proper. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hitesh Verma and Bhajan Lal, the High Court held that the cognizance under Section 3(i)(s) was legally untenable and quashed that part of the charge‑sheet, while leaving the remaining IPC charges to be tried in a regular court. The appeal was allowed in part and the case was transferred for trial on the IPC offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the cognizance taken under Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act is valid when the FIR does not allege caste‑based insult or the accused’s knowledge of the victim’s caste.
- Whether the charge‑sheet can be quashed in part under the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the remaining IPC charges should be left for trial without interference.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 504, 54
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- Section 3(i)(s)
- quash of cognizance
- Inherent powers
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- abuse of process
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3204 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2019 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura
======================================================
Surendra Mohan Singh @ Pintu Singh Son of Late Satyanand Singh Resident
of Village - Basantpur, P.s.- Shankarpur, Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Rishidev Son of Jayram Rishidev Resident of Village - Basantpur ,
Ward No.16, P.S.- Shankarpur, Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv
: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv
: Ms. Pooja Prasad, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing has been preferred to
quash the order dated 06.07.2022 passed in SC/ST Case No.
228 of 2019 arising out of Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 158 of
2019, where learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st,
Madhepura took cognizance for the offence punishable under
Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(s) of
the SC/ST Act against the appellant.
3. The brief case of prosecution speaks that on
07.10.2019 at about 6 PM, while the informant was returning
home on his motorcycle and so when reach, near to the house
of the former Mukhiya at Basantpur, Pankaj Singh’s nephew,
riding a bicycle rashly, collided and fell; after being scolded,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
2/9
the informant went home. Later, Pankaj Singh allegedly
brought the informant to his house, abused him, tied him with
a rope, and assaulted him with lathi and danda, joined by
Pintu Singh who also assaulted him. They allegedly took
₹30,000/- his mobile phone, and kept his motorcycle and left
him injured, after some time his family members took him to
the hospital for treatment.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written report FIR
has been lodged, which has been registered as Shankarpur
P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 for the offence punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 54 of the IPC and Section
3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that after investigation IO has not found case true
against co-accused Satto Chaudhary and he was not sent up
for facing trial, whereas on the basis of almost same materials
submitted charge-sheet under Section 31, 323 and 504/34 of
the IPC and Section 3(i) of the SC/ST Act against appellant
and co-accused Pankaj Singh through charge-sheet no. 154
of 2019 dated 31.12.2019. It is pointed out that learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
3/9
Jurisdictional Magistrate, taking different note took
cognizance against all three accused persons including
appellant under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the IPC and
Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that
present occurrence took place in the background of accident,
where FIR in issue was lodged with the delay of two days i.e.,
for occurrence dated 07.10.2009, FIR in issue was lodged on
09.10.2009. It is submitted that no injury was found upon
injured and with very general and omnibus allegation, the
appellant was implicated with same allegation as raised
against co-accused Satto Chaudhary against whom police
submitted final form, but fairly conceded that he is not the
appellant. It is also submitted that except informant no one is
the eye-witness of the occurrence, whereas as per seizure list
the motorcycle of informant was recovered from the door of
one Laltun Das not from the possession of the appellant. It is
submitted that recovery of looted mobile and cash was neither
made from the conscious possession of the appellant nor from
his house. In view of this impugned cognizance order appears
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
4/9
bad in the eyes of law and, therefore, continuing with any
further proceeding would only amount to abuse the process of
Court of law and, therefore, impugned cognizance order dated
06.07.2022 be quashed and set aside.
7. While travelling over the argument learned
counsel submitted that in FIR, there is no whispering of abuse
using caste name and, therefore, the lodging of this FIR under
Section 3(i)(s) of SC/ST Act appears bad in the eyes of law.
In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Hitesh
Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, [(2020)
10 SCC 710] and also State of Haryana and Others vs.
Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1)
Supreme Court Cases 335.
8. Learned Spl.PP appearing on behalf of State,
while opposing the present quashing petition submitted that
learned counsel for the appellant is referring the statement of
different witnesses as recorded during the course of
investigation and thus by disputing the factual aspects, which
can be ascertained only during the trial. It is submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
5/9
on the basis of material learned Jurisdictional Magistrate is
only to gather opinion whether any prima-facie case is made
out or not against appellant. It is submitted that for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC no injury
report is required, however he conceded that the FIR is not
suggesting that informant was abused even by appellant.
9. It would be apposite at this stage to reproduce
paragraph no. 23 of the Hitesh Verma Case (supra) for
better understanding of the case, which is as under:-
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar
Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v.
State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Cri) 818] held that there is no prohibition under the
law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a
petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court is required to examine as to whether its
intervention is required for prevention of abuse of
process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618, para
9)
“9. Having regard to the settled legal position on
external interference in investigation and the specific
facts of this case, we are of the view that the High
Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There
is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-
sheet in part. A person may be accused of several
offences under different penal statutes, as in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
6/9
instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution
only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground
available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the
High Court is required to examine is whether its
intervention is required for implementing orders under
the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of
abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of
somebody other than the police would amount to
abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court
ought to have exercised its inherent powers under
Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no
requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed
as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police,
at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.”
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
7/9
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
8/9
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
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 at hand, it appears that
there is nothing on record to indicate that the alleged acts of
the appellant were motivated for the reason as complainant is
a member of SC/ST community, neither the FIR nor charge-
sheet contains whisper of allegation of insult or intimidation
by the appellant. It does not even transpires even from the
FIR that appellant was under knowledge that informant
belongs to a SC/ST community.
12. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
discussions, the cognizance against the appellant under
Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act is bad in the eyes of law and
therefore charge-sheet/impugned order to that extent is
quashed.
13. For the cognizance of rest of the offences the
submission as raised by learned counsel for the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
9/9
appears disputing the factual aspects, which can be looked
into during the trial only and, therefore, this Court find no
occasion to interfere with the other offences of the Indian
Penal Code, at this stage.
14. The appeal is disposed of in above terms i.e.,
allowed in part to the aforesaid extent.
15. In view of aforesaid, learned Special Court is
directed to place this matter before learned District Judge as
to transfer this record to Regular Court for trial of rest of the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 54 of the
IPC.
16. 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
Checking your session…