Patna High Court
Shobha DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
No prima facie material exists to sustain charges under IPC 323, 354 and SC/ST Act Sections 3(x) and 3(xi); the order refusing discharge is set aside and the appellants are discharged.
Summary
The appellants were charged under IPC sections 323 and 354 and Sections 3(x) and 3(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting and abusing a Scheduled Caste woman during a land dispute. The Special Court had taken cognizance of the offences, but the appellants sought discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, arguing the case stemmed from a civil land dispute. The High Court examined the complainant's statement and the surrounding circumstances, noting that the alleged abuse was not in public view and there was no evidence of intent to humiliate the victim on the basis of her caste. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that mere caste identity without intent does not attract the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the Court found no prima facie material to sustain the charges and set aside the order refusing discharge, granting the appellants a discharge. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged assault and verbal abuse constitute an offence under Sections 3(x) and 3(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether there is sufficient prima facie material to frame charges under IPC Sections 323 and 354 in the context of a land dispute.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(x), 3(xi)
Subjects
- land dispute
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- intention to humiliate
- IPC 323
- IPC 354
- Section 227 CrPC
- discharge
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4171 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2010 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Shobha Devi Wife of Wakil Sah Resident of Village-Saidpura, P.S.-
Surajgarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai
2. Wakil Sah Son of Late Hazari Sah Resident of Village-Saidpura, P.S.-
Surajgarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai
3. Sujeet Kumar Son of Wakil Sah Resident of Village-Saidpura, P.S.-
Surajgarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai
4. Dayanand Tamoli Son of Late Ram Khelavan Bhagat Resident of Village-
Saidpura, P.S.- Surajgarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Permila Devi Wife of Devendea Paswan @ Lakindra Paswan Resident of
Village-Saidpura, P.S.- Surajgarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate
For the State : None
For the Informant : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 15-04-2026 Herd learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present appeal has been filed for setting
aside the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st-cum Special
Judge, Lakhisarai in connection with Complaint Case No.
09C of 2018 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 75(C) of
2010 in connection with SC/ST P.S. Munger Case No. 51 of
2008), whereby the petition filed by the appellants for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4171 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2026
2/8
discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
3. The prosecution case is lodged on the basis of
FIR bearing SC/ST P.S. Case No. 51 of 2008, alleging
therein that in the year 2007, the informant/respondent no. 2
had taken a piece of land having an area of 1½ decimal for a
period of six years, with the condition that the owner would
deposit the interest for the aforesaid period. The land was
purchased along with two pucca constructed rooms situated
in Khata No. 10, Kheshra No. 53. On 10.06.2008, the
appellants along with 4 to 5 unknown persons arrived with
weapons, entered into the house of the respondent no. 2,
started abusing her by her caste name, and said that why she
had got the land executed in her favour from their brother.
Upon this, the appellants started abusing and also looted
household articles, including cash.
4. The police investigated the case and, after
investigation, submitted a final form on 30.09.2008,
exonerating the appellants with the observation that the case
is civil in nature. A protest petition-cum-complaint was filed
by respondent no. 2, bearing Complaint Case No. 75C of
2010, against the appellants and one other person and in her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4171 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2026
3/8
S.A. she has said that she had purchased 1.5 decimal of land
with house from Ranjeet Sah as sudbharna. At about 04:00
p.m., while the complainant was working, the aforesaid
persons arrived, abused and ousted her, and also assaulted
her with slaps and fists.
5. The learned Special Court took cognizance of
the offences on the basis of S.A. and inquiry witnesses
under Section 323, 354 of IPC and Section 3(x) (xi) of
SC/ST Act, 1989 on 18.08.2011.
6. The appellants challenged the order taking
cognizance before this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 37068
of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated
06.12.2013, with liberty to the appellants to raise all the
contentions at the time of framing of charge. Accordingly,
the appellants filed a petition before the Special Court,
having Case No. 09C/2018, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for
their discharge on several grounds, including the ground
that due to a land dispute, the present FIR/complaint has
been lodged.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
there is long-standing land dispute between the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4171 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2026
4/8
and their brother, Ranjeet Sah. The present case has been
lodged at the behest of Ranjeet Sah. The FIR, at the first
instance, was investigated and during course of
investigation, respondent no. 2 gave statement before the
police that on the date of occurrence, no incident had taken
place and only a scuffle had occurred due to the land
dispute. The police, accordingly, on 30.09.2008, submitted a
final form exonerating the appellants on the ground that
there was land dispute between the parties. The charge-
sheet has been accepted by the learned Special Court.
Thereafter, a protest-cum-complaint petition was filed
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.07.2008, and
upon inquiry and examination of witnesses, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections
323, 354 of the IPC and Section 3(x)(xi) of the SC/ST Act,
1989.
8. The learned counsel next submits that from
perusal of the S.A. of the complainant, it is clear that while
the complainant was at her home, the appellants entered
into the house and abused her and also assaulted her with
fists and slaps. The place of occurrence is the house of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4171 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2026
5/8
complainant, which was not in full public view. It is a case
of land dispute between the appellants and their brother
Ranjeet Sah on whose behest the present complaint has
been filed, in which Ranjeet Sah is also a witness. There are
so many cases that have been filed between Ranjeet Sah and
the appellants, and the orders passed therein have been
annexed at Annexure P/8, P/9, and P/10. The complaint
against the appellants under the SC/ST Act and other
Sections of IPC has been filed in abuse of the process of
court, and from perusal of the S.A. and the inquiry witness,
there is no material to frame charge against the appellants
under Sections 3(x) (xi) of SC/ST Act, 1989, inasmuch as
assuming that the statement made by the complainant is
true, any abuse to her was not intentional with intent to
humiliate a member of scheduled caste.
9. No-one appears for the State as well as
respondent no. 2.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants
and have gone through the material on record, including the
S.A. of the complainant, and statement of the inquiry
witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4171 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2026
6/8
11. From perusal of the S.A. of the complainant, it
appears that the abuse which was made to her in her caste
name was not in public view. As per the allegation of the
complainant, while she was working at her home, the
appellants entered and abused her by caste name on the
ground that why she had purchased a piece of land from
their appellants brother. Section 3(x) cannot be attracted
merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe unless the insult or
intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a
member of the community. Any insult or intimidation
towards the complainant must be on account of such person
being a member of Scheduled Castes. The fact that the
complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste would not be
enough in the background of the case that there was a long-
standing land dispute between the appellants and their
brother Ranjeet saw from whom the complainant had
purchased a piece of land along with small house on
payment of Rs. 17000/-.
12. In the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand and Anr. reported in (2020) (10) SCC 710, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4171 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2026
7/8
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that offence under the
SC/ST is not established merely on the fact that informant is
a member of SC (Scheduled Caste) unless there is intention
to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste
13. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that there is a
dispute about the possession of the land which is the
subject-matter of civil dispute between the parties. Since the
matter is regarding possession of property pending before
the civil court, any dispute arising on account of possession
of the said property would not disclose an offence under the
Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed
only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.
14. In the present case, the land dispute between
the parties is admitted; both the parties, i.e., the vendor of
the complainant and the appellants, are litigating over the
title/possession of the land in question, and several cases are
pending between them, including the Purcha Cancellation
case filed by Ranjeet Shah, which has been rejected, and the
Title Suit bearing No. 62/2016, which is also pending
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4171 of 2024(4) dt.15-04-2026
8/8
between the appellants and Ranjeet Sah. From the records,
the aforesaid discussion, and attending circumstances, it
does not appear that the appellants abused the informant
with intention to humiliate or demean the dignity/status of
the informant. The case under Section 3(x) (xi) of the
SC/ST Act is the result of the land dispute between the
parties.
15. Taking into consideration the materials on
record and the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that no prima facie material is there against the
appellants to frame charges under Sections 323 and 354 of
the IPC and Sections 3(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.07.2024,
refusing to discharge the appellants, is set aside and
appellants are discharged.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.