Patna High Court
Md. Shamsh Alam @ Shams Alam @ Shamsh Malik @ ChhotuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The High Court held that the order taking cognizance against the appellant was not sustainable and quashed it.
Summary
The appellant, Md. Shamsh Alam, was named in an FIR alleging assault, intimidation and caste-based abuse during a dispute over cows. The police investigation found no material against him and filed a final report exonerating him, but the Special Court nonetheless took cognizance of offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act without providing reasons. The appellant appealed, contending that the cognizance was illegal and that the order was a misuse of the court process. The High Court examined the case diary and the police report, noting the absence of any prima facie evidence against the appellant. It held that the Special Court’s order was unsustainable in law and quashed the order of cognizance, thereby relieving the appellant of the prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether the Special Court can take cognizance of offences against an accused when the police investigation has exonerated him and no prima facie material exists.
- Whether the order taking cognizance without stating reasons is legally valid.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 323, 341, 354, 379, 504, 506
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- false FIR
- prima facie
- quash order
- criminal procedure
- caste discrimination
- appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.871 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Jamui
======================================================
Md. Shamsh Alam @ Shams Alam @ Shamsh Malik @ Chhotu SON OF
MD. DANIK MALIK @ DEVIK MALIK @ CHHOTU@ MD. HUSSAIN
AHMAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA - AZAD NAGAR, PS- JAMUI, DIST-
JAMUI
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar BIHAR
2. SUNITA DEVI WIFE OF DINANATH PASWAN RESIDENT OF
MOHALLA - MAHISAUDI, PS- JAMUI, DIST- JAMUI
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Ginni Priya, Advocate
Mr.Anuj Kumar
Ms. Sagrika
For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1
For the informant : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
9 17-03-2026 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved
by the order of cognizance dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned
Addl. District & Sessions Judge 1st -cum- Special Court S.C. /
S.T. P.O.A. Act and POCSO Act in connection with Jamui S.C. /
S.T. P.S. Case No. 34 of 2021 registered under Section 147, 149,
341, 323, 379, 354, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(r)(s)
SC/ST Act whereby the learned Special Court has differed with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.871 of 2024(9) dt.17-03-2026
2/5
the Police report and took cognizance of the offence against the
appellant under Section 341, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the S.C./ S.T. P.O.A. Act
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 25.06.2021 at 7:30
P.M. the informant along with her husband Dinanath Paswan
was feeding their cows. Her neighbour i.e. appellant and other
co-accused persons arrived there and started taking away the
cows. The informant and her husband objected the same, upon
which Ashif Mallik and Humanyun Mallik started assaulting
and abusing the informant by her caste name. They further
threatened that they would outrage her modesty and on the order
of one Ismail Mallik, Ashif opened the ‘saree’ of the informant
and threw it away. On objection raised by the informant’s
husband, the appellant along with other accused persons
assaulted him.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that false and
fabricated F.I.R. has been lodged against the appellant due to
dispute between the co-accused and the informant’s family in
which entire family members have been made accused including
the appellant. The appellant is working in the Ministry of Food
Processing and Industries after completing his B.Tech, M.Tech
and M.B.A. He has purposefully been made accused in order to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.871 of 2024(9) dt.17-03-2026
3/5
harass the appellant in abuse of the process of court, however,
the Police investigated the matter and submitted final form
exonerating the appellant and not sending him for trial. During
course of investigation none of the witnesses has said anything
against the appellant. Learned Special Court in the impugned
order at one place has rightly said that there is no material on
record to differ with the opinion of the I.O. but in the
subsequent paragraph the learned Special Court in a mechanical
manner has mentioned that “considering the above as well as
material in the case diary, cognizance is taken against the
appellant also”. No reason much less brief reason has been
assigned by the learned Special Court while taking cognizance
explaining the nature of material collected during the course of
investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant /
respondent no. 2 argued that the appellant is named in the F.I.R.
and Police during investigation has found material but with
oblique motive has submitted final form not sending the
appellant for trial. The Special Court has the power to differ
with the Police report and finding material against the appellant
the Special Court has rightly taken cognizance against the
appellant also.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.871 of 2024(9) dt.17-03-2026
4/5
5. Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Special Public Prosecutor
SC/ST Act referring to the case diary argued that no material has
been brought on record against the appellant during the course
of investigation. He placed paragraph no. 15 & 16 of the case
diary in order to show that nothing has been said against the
appellant by the witnesses.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
though the material on record including the impugned order.
7. The appellant is the neighbour of the informant and there
was previous dispute between two of the family members of the
appellant with the informant and her family members. The
appellant has been working in the Ministry of Food Processing
& Industries after passing B.Tech, M.Tech & M.B.A. Entire
family of the co-accused including the appellant has been
dragged in this case due to previous dispute. The Police after
investigation submitted final form not sending the appellant for
trial and exonerated him.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor SC/ST Act referred to
the case diary and submits that no prima facie material is
available against the appellant to take cognizance of offence
under the SC/ST Act or any other Section of the I.P.C.
9. Considering the aforesaid discussions and the fact that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.871 of 2024(9) dt.17-03-2026
5/5
learned Special Court has not given brief reason and the
material collected during the course of investigation for taking
cognizance in the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
10. In the result, the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Jamui
S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 34 / 2021 including the entire
prosecution against the appellant is hereby quashed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…