Patna High Court
VIJAY KUMAR JHAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court quashed the Special Judge’s order, holding that the dispute is civil in nature, the SC/ST Act does not apply, and there is no sufficient material to frame criminal charges.
Summary
The appellant Vijay Kumar Jha appealed against the Special Judge’s order rejecting his Section 227 CrPC application, which had allowed framing of charges for alleged offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (PoA) Act arising from a land‑sale dispute with Geeta Devi. The complainant alleged that the appellant failed to demarcate the land after receiving Rs 28 lakh and that he, together with a co‑accused, threatened and assaulted her, invoking caste slurs. The High Court examined whether the allegations amounted to criminal offences such as cheating, criminal intimidation or offences under the SC/ST Act, or were merely a civil breach of contract. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the complaint was essentially a civil dispute, that the ingredients of cheating, intimidation and SC/ST offences were not satisfied, and that there was no sufficient prima‑facie material to justify framing charges. Consequently, the order of the Special Judge was quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts alleged constitute a criminal offence under the IPC (e.g., cheating, criminal intimidation) or merely a civil breach of contract.
- Whether the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are applicable to the dispute.
- Whether there is sufficient prima facie material to frame charges under Section 227 of the CrPC.
- Whether the Special Judge’s order rejecting the Section 227 application should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 190, 204, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- land dispute
- civil vs criminal
- Section 227 CrPC
- SC/ST (PoA) Act
- cheating
- breach of contract
- criminal intimidation
- framing of charges
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.983 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2018 Thana- KHODAWANDPUR District- Begusarai
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Jha Son Of Lae Shivchandra Jha Resident Of Village - And
P.O.- Bara, P.S.- Khodawandpur, Distt.- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Geeta Devi W/o Ramchandra Choudhary Resident of Village - Singhia-
Buzurg South, Ward no.12, P.S.- Bibhutipur, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur,
Mr. Pravin Kumar
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
9 20-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is filed against the order dated
18.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Begusarai in Khodawandpur P.S.Case No.167/2018 by which
the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai has
rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 227
of Cr.P.C. holding that there are sufficient prima facie materials
on the record for framing of charges against the appellant under
sections 341, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and section 3(1)(r), (s), (w), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST
(PoA)Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
2/22
3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Geeta
Devi filed a complaint petition in the court of learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Begusarai being Complaint Case
No.56 C of 2018 stating therein that she has talked to accused
no. 1 for purchasing 3 katha 2 dhurs and 10 dhurki of land for a
consideration amount of Rs.28 lacs for the purpose of
construction of her house. She went at the land and after being
satisfied, asked the appellant to demarcate the land and also
asked for construction of the boundary on the land but the
accused no.1 stated that only after deposition of the
consideration amount, measurement will be done and boundary
wall will be constructed. Thereafter, the complainant asked the
accused no. 1 to prepare the sale deed and has said that she will
give the consideration money when the deed will be placed
before the Registrar but the same has been denied by the
accused no. 1.
4. Acting upon the same, the complainant, after
selling the house and land of her parental home, had given Rs.8
lacs to accused no.1 at the house of Munsi Ram Padarath Mahto
in presence of witness Rahul Kumar and accused also gave
receipt of receiving the said amount. Again Rs.12 lacs was
given in the hand of accused for which receipt was given to her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
3/22
and again Rs.5 lacs was given to accused No.1 and thereby she
paid the consideration amount and also gave Rs.32,000/- in
cash for purchasing the documents of registry. After the deed
was registered, complainant told the accused no.1 that if
demarcation will be done she will purchase bricks and sands for
construction of the house but till date, the accused has not
demarcated the land rather accused no.1 and 2 abused the
complainant and her witness by taking caste name and has also
said that he will not measure the land and and threatened the
complainant that if she will go to the land in question then she
will be cut into pieces. It is also alleged that both the accused
persons have assaulted the complainant with fist and slaps and
misbehaved with her.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the
police has registered an FIR bearing Khodawandpur P.S.Case
No.167 of 2018 under sections 341, 323, 354, 406, 420,
467/504 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(r)(s) of the
SC/ST (PoA) Act and after investigation, submitted charge-
sheet being Chargesheet No.30/2019 dated 5.3.2019.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellant that at the stage of framing charge, an application
was filed on behalf of the appellant under section 227 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
4/22
Code of Criminal Procedure and rejoinder was filed on behalf
of the prosecution to the said application filed by the appellant
under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. thereafter the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Begusarai vide order dated
18.09.2021 has rejected the petition filed by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that upon bare perusal of the complaint, it appears that
no offence under sections 406, 420, 467 or 354 of the Indian
Penal Code will be made out against the appellant as upon
payment of the above-mentioned consideration amount, the sale
deed of 3 katha 02 dhurs 10 dhurki of land was executed. He
also submits that the complainant/informant also came in
possession of the plot in question.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the appellant has sold his entire land i.e. 3 katha,
2 dhurs, 10 dhurki land to the complainant and now he has no
land in the aforesaid two khesra being Khesra No. 1297 and
1298/2093 of Khata no.281 and once the appellant has sold his
entire share of land of the aforesaid khesra, there was no
question of any demarcation to be done by him.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that only after measurement of the land in question, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
5/22
complainant purchased the land and she has not even given the
full consideration amount. He further submits that the learned
Special Judge ought to have taken into consideration provisions
of sections 420, 467, 468 and other provisions of the Indian
Penal Code before passing the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant,relying on
the aforesaid submissions, has submitted that the learned
Special Judge has erred in rejecting the application filed on
behalf of the appellant under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and if
the impugned order is allowed to stand, the same will cause
irreparable loss to the appellant and the same will be the abuse
of the process of court.
11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
for the appellant has relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in case of Hitesh Verma Versus State of
Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.
12. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the appellant and has supported the impugned order.
13. I have heard and considered the submission of
the parties.
14. The central issue in the present case is with
respect to sale of a piece of land for which the appellant had
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
6/22
allegedly sold 03 katha 02 dhurs 10 dhurki of land and the
complainant had made a payment towards the aforesaid
purchase. From the reading of the complaint petition and the
solemn affirmations, it is clear that the dispute between the
parties is with respect to the denial of possession by the accused
persons which is civil in nature and is being given a criminal
colour for vexatious purposes.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rikhab Birani v. State of U.P. reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC
823 has held as under:-
14. During the last couple of months, a
number of judgments/orders have been
pronounced by this Court, especially in
cases arising from the State of Uttar
Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the
police as well as the courts in failing to
distinguish between a civil wrong in the
form of a breach of contract, non-
payment of money or disregard to and
violation of contractual terms; and a
criminal offence under Sections 420 and
406 of the IPC, the ingredients of which
are quite different and requires mens rea
at the time when the contract is entered
into itself to not abide by the terms
thereof.
15. In Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, this Court quoted an earlier
decision in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State
of Bihar, wherein, referring to Section
420 of the IPC, it was observed that the
offence under the said Section requires
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
7/22
the following ingredients to be satisfied:
“18. Let us now examine whether the
ingredients of an offence of cheating
are made out. The essential
ingredients of the offence of
“cheating” are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either
by making a false or
misleading representation or
by dishonest concealment or
by any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of that person to
either deliver any property or
to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to
intentionally induce that
person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing
or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or
property.”
16. Reference was also made to the decision
in V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat and it was
observed:
“7. Similar elucidation by this Court in
“V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat”,
explicitly states that a contractual
dispute or breach of contract per se
should not lead to initiation of a
criminal proceeding. The ingredient
of ‘cheating’, as defined under
Section 415 of the IPC, is existence
of a fraudulent or dishonest
intention of making initial promise
or representation thereof, from the
very beginning of the formation of
contract. Further, in the absence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
8/22
the averments made in the complaint
petition wherefrom the ingredients of
the offence can be found out, the
High Court should not hesitate to
exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C saves the
inherent power of the High Court, as
it serves a salutary purpose viz. a
person should not undergo
harassment of litigation for a
number of years, when no criminal
offence is made out. It is one thing to
say that a case has been made out
for trial and criminal proceedings
should not be quashed, but another
thing to say that a person must
undergo a criminal trial despite the
fact that no offence has been made
out in the complaint. This Court in
V.Y. Jose (supra) placed reliance on
several earlier decisions in “Hira
Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI”,
“Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Ltd.”, “Vir Prakash Sharma v.
Anil Kumar Agarwal” and “All
Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v.
Dhanesh Badarmal Jain”.”
17. This Court, in Delhi Race Club (1940)
Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
highlighted the fine distinction between
the offences of criminal breach of trust
and cheating, observing that the two are
antithetical in nature and cannot coexist
simultaneously. Police officers and
courts must carefully apply their minds
to determine whether the allegations
genuinely constitute the specific offence
alleged.
18. In Kunti v. State of Uttar Pradesh11, this
Court referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State
of Punjab12 wherein it was observed
that a breach of contract does not give
rise to criminal prosecution for cheating
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
9/22
unless fraudulent or dishonest intention
is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction. Merely on the allegation of
failure to keep a promise will not be
enough to initiate criminal proceedings.
Thus, the dishonest intention on the part
of the party who is alleged to have
committed the offence of cheating should
be established at the time of entering
into the transaction with the
complainant, otherwise the offence of
cheating is not established or made out.
19. It is the duty and obligation of the court
to exercise a great deal of caution in
issuing process, particularly when the
matter is essentially of civil
nature.13 The prevalent impression that
civil remedies, being time-consuming, do
not adequately protect the interests of
creditors or lenders should be
discouraged and rejected as criminal
procedure cannot be used to apply
pressure.14 Failure to do so results in
the breakdown of the rule of law and
amounts to misuse and abuse of the
legal process.
20. In yet another case, again arising from
criminal proceedings initiated in the
State of Uttar Pradesh,15 this Court was
constrained to note recurring cases
being encountered wherein parties
repeatedly attempted to invoke the
jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing
vexatious complaints, camouflaging
allegations that are ex facie outrageous
or are pure civil claims. These attempts
must not be entertained and should be
dismissed at the threshold. Reference
was made to a judgment of this Court
in Thermax Limited v. K.M. Johny16,
which held that courts should be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
10/22
watchful of the difference between civil
and criminal wrongs, though there can
be situations where the allegation may
constitute both civil and criminal
wrongs. Further, there has to be a
conscious application of mind on these
aspects by the Magistrate, as a
summoning order has grave
consequences of setting criminal
proceedings in motion. Though the
Magistrate is not required to record
detailed reasons, there should be
adequate evidence on record to set
criminal proceedings into motion. The
Magistrate should carefully scrutinize
the evidence on record and may even put
questions to the
complainant/investigating officer etc. to
elicit answers to find out the truth about
the allegations. The summoning order
has to be passed when the complaint or
chargesheet discloses an offence and
when there is material that supports and
constitutes essential ingredients of the
offence. The summoning order should
not be passed lightly or as a matter of
course.
21. Lastly, we would refer to another
detailed judgment of this Court in Sharif
Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh17,
which draws out the ingredients required
to establish an offence under
Sections 406, 415, 420, 503 and 506 of
the IPC in the following terms:
“36. An offence under Section 406 of
the IPC requires entrustment, which
carries the implication that a person
handing over any property or on
whose behalf the property is handed
over, continues to be the owner of
the said property. Further, the
person handing over the property
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
11/22
must have confidence in the person
taking the property to create a
fiduciary relationship between them.
A normal transaction of sale or
exchange of money/consideration
does not amount to entrustment.
Clearly, the charge/offence of
Section 406 IPC is not even remotely
made out.
37. The chargesheet states that the
offence under Section 420 is not
made out. The offence of cheating
under Section 415 of
the IPC requires dishonest
inducement, delivering of a property
as a result of the inducement, and
damage or harm to the person so
induced. The offence of cheating is
established when the dishonest
intention exists at the time when the
contract or agreement is entered, for
the essential ingredient of the
offence of cheating consists of
fraudulent or dishonest inducement
of a person by deceiving him to
deliver any property, to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do
or omit if he had not been deceived.
As per the investigating officer, no
fraudulent and dishonest inducement
is made out or established at the
time when the agreement was
entered.
38. An offence of criminal intimidation
arises when the accused intendeds to
cause alarm to the victim, though it
does not matter whether the victim is
alarmed or not. The intention of the
accused to cause alarm must be
established by bringing evidence on
record. The word ‘intimidate’ means
to make timid or fearful, especially :
to compel or deter by or as if by
threats. The threat communicated or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
12/22
uttered by the person named in the
chargesheet as an accused, should
be uttered and communicated by the
said person to threaten the victim for
the purpose of influencing her mind.
The word ‘threat’ refers to the intent
to inflict punishment, loss or pain on
the other. Injury involves doing an
illegal act.
39. This Court in Manik Taneja v. State
of Karnataka, had referred to
Section 506 which prescribes
punishment for the offence of
‘criminal intimidation’ as defined in
Section 503 of the IPC, to observe
that the offence under Section 503
requires that there must be an act of
threating another person with
causing an injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested. This
threat must be with the intent to
cause alarm to the person threatened
or to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or omit to do an
act which he is entitled to do. Mere
expression of any words without any
intent to cause alarm would not be
sufficient to bring home an offence
under Section 506 of the IPC. The
material and evidence must be
placed on record to show that the
threat was made with an intent to
cause alarm to the complainant, or
to cause them to do, or omit to do an
act. Considering the statutory
mandate, offence under Section 506
is not shown even if we accept the
allegation as correct.”
22. Significantly, this Court in Sharif
Ahmed (supra) cautioned courts to check
such attempts of making out a criminal
case on the basis of vague and ex
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
13/22
facie false assertions.
23. Further, Sharif Ahmed (supra) exposits
the legal position relating to the
ingredients and contents of a
chargesheet, drawing upon several
earlier judgments of this Court which
elucidate the contents of a police report
under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. It
also clarifies the course of action to be
adopted by the Magistrate when the
chargesheet is found to be incomplete or
vague in content. In this context,
reference may be made to
Sections 190 and 204 of the Cr.P.C., as
well as Sections 211 to 213 and 218 of
the Cr.P.C., which collectively govern
the framing and contents of a charge.
Some of the portions of this judgment
are reproduced below:
“13. The question of the required details
being complete must be understood
in a way which gives effect to the
true intent of the chargesheet under
Section 173(2) of the Code. The
requirement of “further evidence” or
a “supplementary chargesheet” as
referred to under Section 173(8) of
the Code, is to make additions to a
complete chargesheet8, and not to
make up or reparate for a
chargesheet which does not fulfil
requirements of Section 173(2) of the
Code. The chargesheet is complete
when it refers to material and
evidence sufficient to take
cognizance and for the trial. The
nature and standard of evidence to
be elucidated in a chargesheet
should prima facie show that an
offence is established if the material
and evidence is proven. The
chargesheet is complete where a
case is not exclusively dependent on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
14/22
further evidence. The trial can
proceed on the basis of evidence and
material placed on record with the
chargesheet. This standard is not
overly technical or fool-proof, but a
pragmatic balance to protect the
innocent from harassment due to
delay as well as prolonged
incarceration, and yet not curtail the
right of the prosecution to forward
further evidence in support of the
charges.
XXXXXX
16. This Court in Bhushan
Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) while
referring to Sections 190 and 204 of
the Code has observed that the
expression “cognisance” in Section
190 merely means “becoming aware
of”, and when used with reference to
a court or a judge it connotes “to
take notice of judicially”. It
indicates the juncture at which the
court or Magistrate takes judicial
notice of the offence with a view to
initiate proceedings in respect of
such an offence. This is different
from initiation of proceedings.
Rather, it is a condition precedent to
the initiation of proceedings by a
Magistrate or judge. At this stage,
the Magistrate has to keep in mind
the averments in the complaint or
the police report, and has to
evaluate whether there is sufficient
ground for initiation of proceedings.
This is not the same as the
consideration of sufficient grounds
for conviction, as whether evidence
is sufficient for supporting the
conviction or not, can be determined
only at the stage of trial, and not at
the stage of cognisance. This aspect
is important and will be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
15/22
subsequently referred to when we
examine the decision of this Court
in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India,
and the observations therein which
have been referred to on several
occasions in other judgments.
17. Section 204 of the Code does not
mandate the Magistrate to explicitly
state the reasons for issue of
summons and this is not a
prerequisite for deciding the validity
of the summons. Nevertheless, the
requirement of the Code is that the
summons is issued when it appears
to the Magistrate that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. Summons is
issued to the person against whom
the legal proceedings have
commenced. Wilful disobedience is
liable to be punished under
Section 174 of the Penal Code, 1860.
As a sequitur, keeping in mind both
the language of Section 204 of the
Code and the penal consequences,
the Magistrate is mandated to form
an opinion as to whether there exists
sufficient ground for summons to be
issued. While deciding whether
summons is to be issued to a person,
the Magistrate can take into
consideration any prima
facie improbabilities arising in the
case. The parameters on which a
summoning order can be interfered
with are well settled by the decision
of this court in Bhushan
Kumar (supra). The Magistrate in
terms of Section 204 of the Code is
required to exercise his judicial
discretion with a degree of caution,
even when he is not required to
record reasons, on whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding.
Proceedings initiated by a criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
16/22
court are generally not interfered
with by High Courts, unless
necessary to secure the ends of
justice.
XXXXXX
19. Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218
of the Code deal with the contents of
the charge. The object and purpose
of these provisions is to bring the
nature of allegations against the
accused to his notice. These
allegations have to be proved and
established by leading evidence. The
accused should not be taken by
surprise or be unbeknownst so as to
cause prejudice to him. The
provisions of the Code also
prescribe how to interpret the words
used in the charge in terms of
Section 214 of the Code, the effect of
defects in the charge in terms of
Section 215 of the Code, the power
of the court to alter the charge and
recall of the witnesses when a
charge is altered in terms of Sections
216 and 217 of the Code.
20. There is an inherent connect between
the chargesheet submitted under
Section 173(2) of the Code,
cognisance which is taken under
Section 190 of the Code, issue of
process and summoning of the
accused under Section 204 of the
Code, and thereupon issue of notice
under Section 251 of the Code, or
the charge in terms of Chapter XVII
of the Code. The details set out in
the chargesheet have a substantial
impact on the efficacy of procedure
at the subsequent stages. The
chargesheet is integral to the
process of taking cognisance, the
issue of notice and framing of
charge, being the only investigative
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
17/22
document and evidence available to
the court till that stage.
Substantiated reasons and grounds
for an offence being made in the
chargesheet are a key resource for a
Magistrate to evaluate whether there
are sufficient grounds for taking
cognisance, initiating proceedings,
and then issuing notice, framing
charges etc.
XXXXXX
26. The object and purpose of the police
investigation is manyfold. It includes
the need to ensure transparent and
free investigation to ascertain the
facts, examine whether or not an
offence is committed, identify the
offender if an offence is committed,
and to lay before the court the
evidence which has been collected,
the truth and correctness of which is
thereupon decided by the court.
27. In H.N. Rishbud and Inder
Singh v. State of Delhi21, this Court
notes that the process of
investigation generally consists of :
1) proceeding to the concerned spot,
2) ascertainment of facts and
circumstances, 3) discovery and
arrest, 4) collection of evidence
which includes examination of
various persons, search of places
and seizure of things, and 5)
formation of an opinion on whether
an offence is made out, and filing the
chargesheet accordingly. The
formation of opinion is therefore the
culmination of several stages that an
investigation goes through. This
Court in its decision in Abhinandan
Jha v. Dinesh Mishra22 states that
the submission of the chargesheet or
the final report is dependent on the
nature of opinion formed, which is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
18/22
the final step in the investigation.
28. The final report has to be prepared
with these aspects in mind and
should show with sufficient
particularity and clarity, the
contravention of the law which is
alleged. When the report complies
with the said requirements, the court
concerned should apply its mind
whether or not to take cognisance
and also proceed by issuing
summons to the accused. While
doing so, the court will take into
account the statement of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 of the
Code and the documents placed on
record by the investigating officer.
29. In case of any doubts or ambiguity
arising in ascertaining the facts and
evidence, the Magistrate can, before
taking cognisance, call upon the
investigating officer to clarify and
give better particulars, order further
investigation, or even record
statements in terms of Section 202 of
the Code.
XX XX XX”
16. Further, in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under:
11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet
filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)
(x) of the Act. The said section stands
substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26-1-
2016. The substituted corresponding
provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads
as under:
“3. (1)(r) intentionally
insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
19/22
of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;”
12. The basic ingredients of the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be
classified as
“(1) intentionally insults
or intimidates with intent
to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and (2) in
any place within public
view”.
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
Act would indicate the ingredient of
intentional insult and intimidation with
an intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
All insults or intimidations to a person
will not be an offence under the Act
unless such insult or intimidation is on
account of victim belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The
object of the Act is to improve the socio-
economic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they
are denied number of civil rights. Thus,
an offence under the Act would be made
out when a member of the vulnerable
section of the society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and
harassment. The assertion of title over
the land by either of the parties is not
due to either the indignities, humiliations
or harassment. Every citizen has a right
to avail their remedies in accordance
with law. Therefore, if the appellant or
his family members have invoked
jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
Respondent 2 has invoked the
jurisdiction of the civil court, then the
parties are availing their remedies in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
20/22
accordance with the procedure
established by law. Such action is not for
the reason that Respondent 2 is a
member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is
insult or intimidation in “any place
within public view”. What is to be
regarded as “place in public view” had
come up for consideration before this
Court in the judgment reported as
Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v.
State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC
(Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression
“public place” and “in any place within
public view”. It was held that if an
offence is committed outside the building
e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall,
then the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. On the contrary,
if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then it
would not be an offence since it is not in
the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence
appears to be contrary to what is stated
below in the extract from Swaran Singh,
(2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in
the application of this principle in para
15, below:“Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the
public view.”] . The Court held as
under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR
that Vinod Nagar, the first informant,
was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3
(by calling him a “chamar”) when
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
21/22
he stood near the car which was
parked at the gate of the premises. In
our opinion, this was certainly a
place within public view, since the
gate of a house is certainly a place
within public view. It could have
been a different matter had the
alleged offence been committed
inside a building, and also was not
in the public view. However, if the
offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane
outside the boundary wall, the lawn
would certainly be a place within the
public view. Also, even if the remark
is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also
it would be an offence since it is in
the public view. We must, therefore,
not confuse the expression “place
within public view” with the
expression “public place”. A place
can be a private place but yet within
the public view. On the other hand, a
public place would ordinarily mean
a place which is owned or leased by
the Government or the municipality
(or other local body) or gaon sabha
or an instrumentality of the State,
and not by private persons or private
bodies.” (emphasis in original)
17. In view of the afore-quoted Judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon reading of the complaint
petition, it is clear that the abuses has taken place for
occurrence relating to land and therefore, the provisions of
SC/ST Act will not be applicable.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2022(9) dt.20-01-2026
22/22
18. From the reading of the complaint case and
from the discussions made herein above, it appears that there is
no sufficient material against the appellant for which he shall
be prosecuted under the provisions of IPC.
19. Considering the aforesaid, this appeal is
allowed.
20. Accordingly, the order dated 18.09.2021 passed
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in
Khodawandpur P.S.Case No.167/2018, is hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.