Patna High Court – Orders
Syed Sharim Ali vs The State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.507 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
Syed Sharim Ali, S/O Saukat Ali, R/O Mohalla-Abgilla, P.S.-Mufassil, Distt-
Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi, Wife of Veera Manjhi, R/O Bhisand Bangla, P.S.- Wazirganj,
Dist.- Gaya- 805131
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Atal Bihari Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
9 09-07-2025
1. The petitioner has approached this Court in
revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Cr.P.C., challenging an order of cognizance of offence,
punidhsble under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 427, 436, 504,
506 and 34 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(1)(2)(IV) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that on 2nd
of December, 2017, Wazirganj P. S. Case No. 523 of 2017 was
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 387, 307, 506 and
427 of the IPC on the basis of a written complaint submitted by
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
2/9
one Arun Kumar against one Nagendra Singh, Lambu Pathak,
Manoj Kumar Singh, Lalan Paswan and other unknown persons.
Subsequently, on 7th of December, 2017, Wajirganj P.S. Case
No. 523 of 2017 was registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 337, 338, 307, 435 and 353 of
the IPC on the basis of a written complaint submitted by one
Mukesh Kumar against Satyendra Paswan, Krishna Manjhi,
Binda Manjhi, Umesh Manjhi, Chandra Manjhar, Arjun Manjhi,
Devraj Manjhi, Kashi Manjhi, Binod Saw, Kameshwar Manjhi,
Raho Manjhi, Jamun Manjhi, Yogendra Manjhi, Kala Manjhi,
Kaleshwar Manjhi, Mahendra Manjhi, Ganesh Manjhi, Kapil
Manjhi, Ramnavi Manjhi and 25-30 unknown persons.
3. Both the above-mentioned cases were instituted
basically on some dispute relating to landed property, where one
Ashok Singh @ Ashok Dada wanted to raise construction. It
was alleged that the FIR named accused persons in the above-
mentioned two cases and his associates obstructed the
construction raised by the said Ashok Kumar Singh.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that in both cases charge-sheet was filed by the police.
5. Subsequently, on 13th of December, 2017, one
Sunita Devi lodged a complaint before the SC & ST Police
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
3/9
Station, Gaya, being FIR Case No. 65 of 2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 427, 436, 504,
506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(2)(iv) of the
SC & ST Act. It was alleged by the said Sunita Devi that on 7 th
of December, 2017, at about 4/5 P.M., when she was coming
with other villagers after performing agricultural work in their
respective lands, Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Dada, Syed
Sharim Ali, Arun Kumar and Ravi Kumar abused her and other
villagers with filthy language. Hearing the sound of hue and cry,
the family members of the de facto complainant and other
villagers came to the spot, thereafter the accused persons
assaulted them, causing fractured injury to right leg of one
Dewali Manjhi. The accused persons also assaulted one Rita
Devi severely. Accused, Ashok Kumar Singh assaulted the
informant, pulling her hair and abusing her in the name of her
caste. He also threatened her, saying that he would destroy the
cultivation and set fire in the houses of “Bhuiyas” (Members of
Scheduled Caste). They also open fire from riffles in their hand.
Subsequently, the FIR named accused persons entered into the
room of the informant and damaged and destroyed the
household articles. They set fire on the household articles and
pigs which the informant reared.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
4/9
6. Matter on record further shows that in SC & ST
Case No. 65 of 2017, the police submitted final report on the
ground that the allegation was not proved during investigation.
However, vide order, dated 20th/ 22nd of April, 2019, the learned
Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Gaya took cognizance of offence
against the above-named accused persons under the penal
provisions of the IPC as well as the SC & ST Act.
7. The said order of cognizance is under challenge in
the instant criminal revision.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, learned
Advocate for the petitioner that the alleged incident took place
on 7th of December, 2017. The FIR was lodged after a lapse of 6
days on 13th of December, 2017. There is no explanation as to
why there was delay in lodging the FIR by the Opposite Party
No. 2. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that the Opposite Party No. 2 was set up by their
community to lodge a false complaint as a counter case to
Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 523 of 2017.
9. It is further submitted by Mr. Kejriwal, learned
Advocate for the petitioner that the FIR story submitted by the
Opposite Party No. 2 is concocted and the same was not
supported by any witness who was examined by the I.O.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
5/9
Therefore, the Investigating Officer submitted final report
against the petitioner and other accused persons.
10. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Kejriwal that in order
to attract Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act, it is incumbent
for the prosecution to prove intentional insult or intimidation or
abuse of any member of SC & ST by caste name to humiliate
such persons in any place within public view. The FIR filed by
Sunita Devi suggests that she was not insulted, intimidated,
humiliated, or abused in any place within public view.
Therefore, prima facie ingredients of offence under the penal
provisions of SC & ST Act do not arise.
11. The learned Special Judge failed to consider such
aspect at the time of taking cognizance. He took cognizance on
the basis of the materials in case diary under the penal
provisions of IPC and SC & ST Act.
12. In order to substantiate his argument, Mr Kejriwal
refers to an unreported judgement passed by this Court in Cr.
Rev. No. 200 of 2024 on 17th of February, 2025 (Mahesh Tiwari
& Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
13. In the aforesaid unreported decision, this Court
took into consideration the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. The State of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
6/9
Odisha & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1608 of 2020)
decided on 5th of December, 2024.
14. Paragraph No. 13 of the aforesaid judgement is
relevant for our purpose and quoted below:-
“13. On a reading of the same, it is evident
that the intention to insult or intimidate with an
intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribe must be “in any place within
public view.” There is no doubt that the second
respondent herein, is a member of the Scheduled
Caste. The question is, whether, the alleged
utterances by the appellant herein, was in any place
within public view. It is noted that when the second
respondent sought to repair her house which is
adjacent to the appellant’s house along with her
employees (Labourers) and went into the appellant’s
house without seeking his prior permission, it was
objected to by the appellant herein. The place of
occurrence of the alleged offence was at the
backyard of the appellant’s house. Backyard of a
private house cannot be within the public view. The
persons who accompanied the second respondent
were also the employees or the labour force she had
engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to
her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house.
They cannot also be termed as public in general.”
15. On the similar point, this Court also referred to the
decisions of this Court in Deo Shanker Vajpayee @ Deo
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
7/9
Shankar Bajpayee & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors,
Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in
2023 6 SCR 643 and Bombay High Court Judgement of
Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application No. 4113 of 2002
4113 of 2022, (Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan Vs. The State
of Maharashtra & Anr.)
16. Under the background of above submission made
by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, let me consider the
legality and validity of the order, dated 20th / 22nd of April, 2019,
by virtue of which the learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act, took
cognizance of offence against the four accused persons.
17. In the instant case, the petitioner is Syed Sharim
Ali. On careful perusal of the written complaint filed by Sunita
Devi, it is ascertained that an allegation has been made only
against Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Dada, who caught hold of
the informant by her hair and abused her with filthy language in
the name of her caste. The first incident took place on the road
when the informant and others were coming from their
agricultural land after cultivation. It is the statement of the
informant that she, along with other villagers, was coming from
the agricultural land through the village road when Ashok
Kumar Singh and his associates wrongfully restrained them.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
8/9
18. On close reading of the FIR, this Court finds that
no allegation was made against the present petitioner alleging
that he insulted, humiliated and abused the informant and
others, taking the name of the caste of the informant. It was only
Ashok Kumar Singh against whom such allegation was made.
Therefore, the learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Gaya,
committed apparent illegality by taking cognizance of the
offence against the present petitioner under the penal provisions
of the SC & ST Act. The said part of the order of cognizance is
liable to be quashed, and accordingly the same is quashed.
19. However, it is open for the learned Special Judge
to take cognizance of offence under the IPC on the basis of the
materials in case diary even if final report is submitted by the
Investigating Officer.
20. Considering such aspect of the matter, this Court
finds that the Trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error
in taking cognizance of offence against Ashok Kumar Singh
under the penal provisions of the IPC as well as under SC & ST
Act.
21. The learned Special Judge also did not commit any
jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of offence under the
IPC against other three accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.507 of 2024(9) dt.09-07-2025
9/9
22. I shall be failing to discharge my duty if I do not
mention that factual background of Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi’s
case (supra) is not similar to this case.
23. In the said report, the victim was abused allegedly
in the backyard of a private house and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that backyard of private house cannot be within the
public view.
24. In the instant case, the victim was allegedly abused
on village road which is open for public view. Therefore, at this
stage of the case, this Court is not in a position to hold that the
cognizance order is absolutely bad.
25. For the reasons stated above, the order of
cognizance taken against the petitioner under the penal
provisions of SC & ST Act is quashed and set aside.
26. Remaining order of cognizance against the
petitioner is affirmed and maintained.
27. The instant revision is, thus, disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
U
[ad_1]
Source link