Dismissed

Ram Sagar Sah and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Apr 2013CR. MISC./29655/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order taking cognizance of offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court rejected the petitioners' submission that the FIR's omission of caste details and the alleged non-public nature of the road vitiates the prosecution, holding these are factual issues for trial.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance is dismissed.

Ram Sagar Sah and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29655 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== 1. Ram Sagar Sah S/o Late Ram Dyal Sah 2. Mahavir Kumar Sah @ Mahavir Sah S/o Ram Sagar Sah both are R/o Village-Bihunpur Bakhri, P.S-Sakra, District-Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rajendra Das S/o Late Singheshwar Das R/o Bishunpur Bakhri, P.SSakra, District-Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 25-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶4

By the impugned order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the

¶5

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur cognizance has been taken in G.R. No. 3332 of 2009/Trial No. 4370 of 2011, arising out of Sakra P.S. Case No. 391 of 2009 dated 22.10.2009, for the offences under sections 341, 323, 504, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short S.C. & S.T. Act).

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no. 2 as contained in Annexure-1 it has not been stated that the accused persons are not

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29655 of 2011 (2) dt.25-04-2013

¶8

2/3

¶9

the members of the Scheduled castes or the Scheduled tribes, therefore, their criminal prosecution for offences under the S.C. & S. T. Act is untenable and misconceived. He further submits that though according to the F.I.R. the occurrence in question is said to have been taken place on a road, but, according to him, that is not a public place, and, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners under the S. C. & S. T. Act. In support of his above contentions he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [2009 (1) BCCR 153 (SC)].

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer.

¶11

The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners seem to be completely misconceived and are fit to be rejected. In the whole petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. it is no where stated that the petitioners belong to either scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes. Merely because of non mentioning of that fact in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 will not vitiate the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners, and on that ground alone order taking cognizance cannot be quashed. Secondly, in the F.I.R. the informant claims that he was assaulted by the accused persons on a public road. The plea of the petitioners that the aforesaid public

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29655 of 2011 (2) dt.25-04-2013

¶13

3/3

¶14

road is in front of the house of the accused persons, and therefore, the occurrence has not taken place in public gaze are the issues of facts, which cannot be gone into at this stage, and for that evidence would be required. Whether other persons were present or not at the relevant time of occurrence at the spot is also an issue of fact, which can be examined and tested only during the course of trial. Furthermore, the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioners is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case.

¶15

For the reasons recorded above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the impugned order taking cognizance.

¶16

In the result, this application has to fail and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

RPS/-

¶18

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Ram Sagar Sah and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sagar Sah and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihar State Local Bodies Emp.F Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Suraj Amrit Raj Vs The Bihar State Bidhyut Board and Ors.

Chandrika Prasad Singh Vs The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Chandan Chakraborty Vs Calcutta State Transport Corpn

Arun Kumar Arun Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Sahabuddin Vs The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.