Patna High Court
Arjun ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The order of the Special Judge is not sustainable and the prosecution against the appellants is quashed due to lack of prima facie material.
Summary
The appellants, members of the Chauhan family, were charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly harvesting crops, demanding money, and abusing a labourer, Rajendra Ram, by calling his caste name. The prosecution’s case was based on an FIR filed by Dinesh Prasad Singh, but the investigation revealed that the alleged victim was never examined and most witnesses claimed the case was false, arising from a land dispute. The appellants argued that the FIR was lodged to settle the dispute and that there was no prima facie material to sustain the charges. The Special Judge had rejected the appellants’ prayer for discharge, prompting this appeal. The High Court, after reviewing the case diary and witness statements, found no prima facie evidence and held that proceeding with the prosecution would constitute harassment and abuse of process, thereby setting aside the Special Judge’s order and quashing the entire prosecution. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has prima facie material to sustain charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the listed IPC sections.
- Whether the order of the Special Judge rejecting the discharge application is sustainable.
- Whether the case constitutes an abuse of the judicial process given the alleged false nature of the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 379, 385, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- false FIR
- land dispute
- quash of prosecution
- abuse of process
- IPC offences
- caste-based harassment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.580 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2018 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. ARJUN CHAUHAN, SON OF RAMESHWAR CHAUHAN @
RAMESHWAR CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA
HARDIYALPUR, PS- ARIYARI, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA
2. RAJESH CHAUHAN, SON OF RAMESHWAR CHAUHAN @
RAMESHWAR CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA
HARDIYALPUR, PS- ARIYARI, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA
3. MUKESH CHAUHAN, SON OF RAMESHWAR CHAUHAN @
RAMESHWER CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA
HARDIYALPUR, PS- ARIYARI, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA
4. RAMESHWAR CHAUHAN @ RAMESHWER CHAUHAN, SON OF
LATE KEDAR CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA
HARDIYALPUR, PS- ARIYARI, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA
5. RAGHUNANDAN CHAUHAN @ RAGHUNI CHAUHAN, SON OF
LATE KEDAR CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA
HARDIYALPUR, PS- ARIYARI, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA
6. RABINDRA CHAUHAN @ BUNDAR CHAUHAN, SON OF LATE
KEDAR CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA
HARDIYALPUR, PS- ARIYARI, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA
7. MITHILESH CHAUHAN, SON OF RABINDRA CHAUHAN RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA HARDIYALPUR, PS- ARIYARI, DISTT-
SHEIKHPURA
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. DINESH PRASAD SINGH @ DINU SINGH SON OF LATE JAGO
SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIMAN TOLA HARDIYALPUR, PS-
ARIYARI, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar
For the State : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit
For respondent no. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
11 13-03-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Counsel
for the respondent no. 2 and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.580 of 2024(11) dt.13-03-2026
2/6
2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the order,
dated 18.12.2023, passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Sheikhpura,
in connection with SC/ST Case No. 56 of 2018, arising
out of Ariyari Police Station Case No. 51 of 2018, dated
03.04.2018, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 147/148/149/323/342/379/385/504 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 (2) (va)/3 (1) (r) (s) [sic. 3 (R)
(S)] of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the learned
Special Judge has rejected the prayer for discharge filed
by the appellants.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report
lodged by one Dinesh Prasad Singh on 03.04.2018, is that
the informant was the caretaker of the land belonging to
Kaushlendra Kumar Singh and his brothers, situated at
mouza Biman, Thana No. 260. On 22.03.2018, at about 5
AM, when the informant had gone to the field for
harvesting the crops, he saw that appellants were
harvesting and taking away the crops standing there. On
protest, the accused persons demanded rangdari of Rs.
40,000/- per annum. It was further alleged that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.580 of 2024(11) dt.13-03-2026
3/6
appellants/accused persons abused one of the labourers,
Rajendra Ram, by calling his caste name. Due to the
threats made by the appellants, the labourers working in
the field fled away. The appellants/accused persons took
away the crops standing over two bighas of land worth
Rs. 8,500/-.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the First
Information Report has been lodged in order to settle the
land dispute between the informant’s landlord and the
appellants. The disputed land falls in Khesra No. 800 and
Khesra No. 800 is not the land for cultivation; rather, the
same is pyne, from where water is flowing. Title Suits are
also pending between the landlord of the informant and
the appellants, having Title Suit Nos. 78 of 2019 and 27
of 2021. The First Information Report has been lodged
after a delay of about 12 days from the date of occurrence
without any plausible reason.
5. During the course of investigation, no material has come
against the appellants to connect them with the offences
under Sections 3 (2) (va)/3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, or any other sections alleged under the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.580 of 2024(11) dt.13-03-2026
4/6
provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In course of
investigation, all the witnesses have said that a false case
has been lodged against the appellants. The victim,
Rajendra Ram, who allegedly belongs to Schedule Caste
category, was not testified during course of investigation
and his statement was not record.
6. The victim, Rajendra Ram, has filed a petition before the
learned Special Judge stating therein that a false case has
been lodged under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, involving him due to the land dispute.
7. Accordingly, the submission is that there is no prima
facie material on record to frame charges against the
appellants.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no.
2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
oppose the prayer of the appellants and submit that on the
basis of supervision note, the report of the Circle officer,
Ariyari and the documents of land, the occurrence and the
allegation against the appellants were found true. The
appellants abused Rajendra Ram, who is a member of
Schedule Caste category by calling him by his caste name
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.580 of 2024(11) dt.13-03-2026
5/6
and threatened him with fire arms and they also looted
crops, which was standing on the land.
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned
and have gone through the materials available on record,
including the case diary.
10.From perusal of the case diary, it appears that majority of
the witnesses have said that a false case has been lodged
due to the land dispute except the informant. The victim,
Rajendra Ram, has not been examined by the Police
during course of investigation and nowhere he has
supported the prosecution case.
11.Even assuming that the victim Rajendra Ram was abused
by his caste name, but the same was not in full public
view, with an intention to denigrate the prestige of the
victim Rajendra Ram.
12. Allowing the prosecution to continue in the facts of the
present case, in my opinion, shall cause unnecessary
harassment to the appellants in abuse of the process of
court. There is admitted land dispute between the side of
the informant and the appellants. No prima facie material
is available on record to frame charges against the
appellants.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.580 of 2024(11) dt.13-03-2026
6/6
13. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the impugned
order, dated 18.12.2023, passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Sheikhpura,
in connection with SC/ST Case No. 56 of 2018, arising
out of Ariyari Police Station Case No. 51 of 2018, is not
sustainable and is hereby set aside. The entire prosecution
against the appellants is also quashed.
14.In the result, this appeal is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…