Patna High Court
Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s order taking cognizance and directed a fresh consideration of cognizance after proper examination of the case diary and protest petition.
Summary
The appellants were charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC sections for alleged offences arising out of a land dispute with the respondent. The trial court took cognizance of the offences despite the police investigation finding no substantive evidence and most witnesses not supporting the complaint. The appellants argued that the trial court ignored the investigation report, failed to examine material witnesses and the protest petition filed by the respondent, and mechanically proceeded to take cognizance. The respondent contended that the order was proper, citing a land‑measurement dispute and alleged obstruction and assault by the appellants. The High Court examined the FIR, case diary and the procedural lapses, concluded that the trial court’s approach was flawed, set aside the order taking cognizance and directed the trial court to re‑examine the materials before deciding on cognizance. Consequently, the application seeking quash of the order was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court correctly exercised cognizance of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC despite the lack of corroborative evidence and witness testimony.
- Whether the procedural requirement to consider the protest petition and examine all material witnesses was complied with.
- Whether the order taking cognizance should be set aside for being a mechanical and prejudiced exercise of jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 341, 447, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- land dispute
- cognizance of offences
- procedural fairness
- criminal procedure
- false complaint
- scheduled caste
- IPC offences
- protest petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4010 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2022 Thana- SC/ST District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav Son of Late Dorik Yadav Resident of
village- Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
2. Anmol Yadav son of Late Janaklal Yadav Resident of village- Kachahri
Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
3. Vidyanand Yadav Son of Late Janaklal Yadav Resident of village- Kachahri
Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
4. Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar son of Anmol Yadav Resident of village-
Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
5. Mithlesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Kumar son of Tej Narayan Yadav Resident of
village- Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
6. Tej Narayan Yadav @ Tej Yadav Son of Late Janaklal Yadav Resident of
village- Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
7. Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Prithwi Yadav Resident of
village- Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
8. Sitaram Yadav @ Teni Yadav @ Dev Narayan Yadav son of Late Mathuri
Yadav Resident of village- Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District
- Purnea.
9. Janardan Yadav @ Janrdan Yadav Son of Late Prasadi Yadav Resident of
village- Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
10. Mala Devi Wife of Anmol Yadav Resident of village- Kachahri Balua,
Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
11. Pratima Devi Wife of Vidyanand Yadav Resident of village- Kachahri Balua,
Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
12. Renu Devi Wife of Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav Resident of village-
Kachahri Balua, Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Phulo Devi Wife of Gajadhar Rishi Resident of village- Kachahri Balua,
Rahika Tola P.S.- Sarsi, District - Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Avnish Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP
For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Kumar Praveen, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4010 of 2024(11) dt.25-06-2026
2/5
11 25-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under section
14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to quash the
order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea in
Special SC/ST Case No. 16 of 2022 whereby and whereunder
cognizance of the offences under sections 147, 323, 341, 447,
504, 506 of the IPC and section 3(i) (r) (s) of the SC/ST Act has
been taken against the appellants.
3. Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the respondent no.2 filed complaint case
against 12 persons which was sent to the police for investigation
and after investigation the police did not find any substance in
the allegations levelled by the respondent no.2 and consequently
submitted final form in favour of the appellants but thereafter
mainly taking into account the restatement of respondent no.2
and the statement of her son, cognizance of the alleged offences
has been taken against the appellants without perusing the other
relevant materials available in the case diary and during
investigation the material witnesses who were examined by the
I.O. did not support the allegations of the respondent no.2 rather,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4010 of 2024(11) dt.25-06-2026
3/5
they stated that there was a land dispute between the respondent
no.2 and the State Government and since the appellants’ land is
situated adjacent to the land in question, so, they are being
harassed by the respondent no.2 through the institution of a
frivolous complaint.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Kumar Praveen, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the order impugned
has rightly been passed and the land in question was settled in
favour of the respondent no.2 and others which is presently
under the possession of the appellants and for demarcation of
the said settled land an application was filed by the husband of
respondent no.2 upon which Anchal Amin came and started
measuring it but the appellants and others started creating
obstacle in the process of measurement and later abused and
assaulted the prosecution party and thereafter on the basis of
Anchal Amin’s report the Public Grievance Redressal Officer
passed an order dated 27.12.2018 giving strict direction for
measurement of the land and also directed to take strict legal
action against the appellants if they again create obstacle in the
process of measurement and consequently on the alleged date
and time of the occurrence the appellants entered into the house
of respondent no.2 and committed the alleged offences and there
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4010 of 2024(11) dt.25-06-2026
4/5
are sufficient materials to attract the alleged offences of which
cognizance has been taken.
5. I have heard both the sides and perused the order
impugned, the FIR which is based on the complaint of
respondent no. 2 as well as case diary pertaining to the said P.S.
Case.
6. From the above submissions one thing is quite clear
that on the alleged date and time of the occurrence there was a
land dispute between both the parties and the respondent no.2
filed her complaint against 12 persons without disclosing their
specific role in the commission of the alleged occurrence except
the appellant no.1, Vijay Yadav and during investigation most of
the witnesses except respondent no.2, her husband and her son
stated nothing with regard to the allegations levelled by the
respondent no.2 in her complaint. Surprisingly, the I.O. did not
examine the witnesses cited in the complaint and in the protest
petition which is said to have been filed by the respondent no.2,
a copy of which has been filed by the learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 at the time of hearing before this court, there is
no details of examination of the witnesses cited by the said
respondent no.2 in her complaint. It is also very surprising that
while taking cognizance of the alleged offences the learned trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4010 of 2024(11) dt.25-06-2026
5/5
court did not pass any order on the protest petition filed by the
respondent no.2 which was on record at that time and all theses
facts and circumstances show the mechanical approach of the
trial court, so, the impugned order requires interference from
this court, hence, it stands set aside and the trial court is directed
to pass a fresh order on the point of cognizance after taking into
account the relevant materials available in the case diary as well
as examining the protest petition filed by respondent no.2
without being prejudiced by this order according to merit.
7. In the result, the instant application stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
BKS/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.