Patna High Court
Anil Kumar @ Anil BayahutversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The charge under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act is quashed as no prima facie case exists, while the remaining IPC charges are left to proceed.
Summary
The appellant, Anil Kumar Bayahut, was charged for allegedly abusing and assaulting a Circle Officer during a traffic congestion incident on 18 November 2018. The FIR alleged offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 353, 504/34 and under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Special Judge rejected the appellant's discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, prompting a quashing appeal before the Patna High Court. The High Court examined whether the allegations, particularly under the SC/ST Act, disclosed a prima facie case and considered the scope of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. It held that the FIR did not show that the appellant knew of the informant's SC/ST status nor that any caste‑based insult occurred, and therefore the charge under the SC/ST Act was not made out. Consequently, the court quashed the SC/ST charge while leaving the remaining IPC charges to be tried by a regular court.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the High Court can quash the charge‑sheet, in part, under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the facts alleged constitute offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 353 and 504/34.
- Whether the Special Judge was correct in rejecting the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 155(2), 156(1), 227, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 353, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- quash
- Section 482 CrPC
- prima facie case
- IPC offences
- abuse of process
- traffic dispute
- caste discrimination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3354 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2018 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anil Kumar @ Anil Bayahut Son of Pannalal Vyahut Resident of- Ward No.-
1, Harsidhi, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- West Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Adv
: Mr. Aakash Choudhary, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing appeal has been
preferred to quash the order dated 21.05.2022 passed in
SC/ST Case No. 360 of 2021 arising out of Harsidhi P.S. Case
No. 476 of 2018 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Motihari, whereby learned Special Judge has rejected the
application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the
appellant for his discharge, which was preferred against the
cognizance order, which was taken for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353 and 504/34 of the
IPC and Sections 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3354 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
2/9
3. The brief case of prosecution speaks that the
informant, Satish Kumar, Circle Officer of Harsidhi Block,
while he was returning on 18.11.2018 at about 6:00 PM to
the Circle Office after inspecting law and order arrangements
for the Chief Minister’s arrival, he reached Harsidhi Market
and found heavy traffic congestion due to several vehicles and
about 45 auto-rickshaws were parked on the road. When he
directed the auto drivers to remove their vehicles, Anil
Bayahut along with his son Anand Bayahut allegedly
approached his vehicle, start abusing him, and, despite his
attempt to pacify, behaved aggressively and appeared to
assault him.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant submitted that from the bare perusal of material
available on record it can be gathered safely that driver of the
informant and other witnesses have not supported the case of
the informant rather they have stated that appellant has not
abused and assaulted the informant, but said fact was
completely ignored by learned Trial Court. It is submitted that
in-fact the driver of the informant tried to puncture the auto-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3354 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
3/9
rickshaw which was standing beside the road and for that
appellant and other auto-rickshaw drivers raised objections,
whereafter the present false case was lodged, upon
completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed against
the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 353 and 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of
the SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that from the bare
perusal of FIR, it can be gathered that no criminal force was
used to restrain the informant from discharging his duty being
public servant and, therefore, no case under Sections 341 and
353 of the IPC as alleged appears made out. It is submitted
that the requirement of Section 323 of the IPC also not
appears meet out.
5. While travelling over the argument learned
counsel submitted that even from the perusal of the FIR it can
be gathered safely that there is no whisper qua abusing
informant in his caste name, rather it was alleged in very
general manner that informant was abused by the appellant.
It is not the case of prosecution that appellant was aware
about the caste of the informant, who is C.O. and was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3354 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
4/9
discharging his public duty qua traffic regulations of the area.
In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the
reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another,
[(2020) 10 SCC 710] & also State of Haryana and
Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992
Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.
6. Learned Spl.PP appearing on behalf of State,
while opposing the present quashing petition submitted that
even the grave suspicion is sufficient to frame a charge and if
on the basis of material on record, the Court could form an
opinion that accused must have committed offence charge can
be framed. In support of her submissions learned Spl.PP
relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, [2010(09) SCC 368].
Learned Spl.PP further relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through State of Delhi Vs.
Gyan Devi and others, [(2000) 8 SCC 239] where it has
been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that at the stage of
framing of charge the Trial Court is not to examine material in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3354 of 2022 dt.25-02-2026
5/9
details nor it is for the court to consider the sufficiency of
material to establish the offences alleged against the accused
person, rather at the stage of framing charge the court is to
examine the material only with a view to be satisfied that a
prima-facie case of commission of offence alleged has been
made out against the accused persons.
7. 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.3354 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.”
8. 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.3354 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.3354 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.”
9. 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 herein, except that the informant was
discharging his official duty. It does not even transpires from
the FIR that appellant was under knowledge that informant
belongs to a SC/ST community.
10. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
discussions, the charge against the appellant under Section
3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act are not made out consequently
the charge-sheet/impugned orders to that extent is quashed.
11. For the cognizance of rest of the offences
(under Sections 341, 323, 353 and 504/34 of the IPC) the
submission as raised by learned counsel for the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3354 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 aforesaid offences of the Indian
Penal Code, at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in
above terms i.e., allowed in part to the aforesaid extent.
13. 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 qua rest of the
offences.
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
Checking your session…