Dismissed¶37

Shambhu Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Feb 2025CR. APP (SJ)/1998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC Criminal Appeal (SJ) 1998/2024 (Rajiv Roy, J., 15-02-2025): appeal to quash cognizance order 04.06.2022 of Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA), Saran at Chapra taking cognizance u/s 323/506 IPC and 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act with summons; police final form 'land dispute' discarded as witnesses Suraj Kumar and Manish Kumar corroborated; civil-dispute plea via Title Suit No. 375 of 2022 rejected as subsequent move; injury-report absence argued; appeal and I.A. No. 01 of 2024 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance order dated 04.06.2022 stands: besides the complainant, two witnesses supported the prosecution story, and on that basis together with the record and the cognizance order the Court concluded that the appeal is bereft of merit. ¶36

Shambhu Thakur Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 04.06.2022 of the Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA), Saran at Chapra (SC/ST Trail No. 119/2022, arising out of Complaint Case No. 63/2022 / Saran Mahila P.S. Case No. 54/2021), taking cognizance against the appellants u/s 323/506 IPC and 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act and directing issue of summons, should be quashed. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The civil-dispute objection is rejected: the Title Suit is a subsequent move which fortifies the dispute which led to the occurrence, as recorded by the learned court below.

¶36

Key takeaways

The present appeal, as also Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024, stands dismissed; the cognizance order is not quashed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1998 of 2024, Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.), decided 15-02-2025: sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 04.06.2022 of the Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA), Saran at Chapra (SC/ST Trail No. 119/2022; Complaint Case No. 63/2022 arising out of Saran Mahila P.S. Case No. 54/2021) whereby cognizance was taken against five appellants u/s 323/506 IPC and 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act with directions to issue summons, after the police final form labelling the matter a land dispute was discarded on corroboration by witnesses Suraj Kumar and Manish Kumar. Prosecution allegations: caste-name abuse, garbage thrown before the complainant's house, fists and slaps and dragging, to force her to leave. Counsel for appellants urged a purely civil dispute (Title Suit No. 375 of 2022 pending before Sub-Judge-1, Saran at Chapra) and the absence of an injury report. The Court held that two witnesses corroborated the prosecution story and that the Title Suit was a subsequent move fortifying the dispute leading to the occurrence; the appeal was bereft of merit — the appeal and I.A. No. 01 of 2024 were dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1998 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2022 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Shambhu Thakur S/o Late Sudarshan Thakur R/o Village-Kamta, P.S.Baniapur, District-Saran

¶5

Abhishek Thakur @ Abhishek Prakash S/o Shankar Thakur R/o VillageKamta, P.S.-Baniapur, District-Saran

¶6

Guddu Thakur @ Guddoo Kumar S/o Shankar Thakur R/o Village-Kamta, P.S.-Baniapur, District-Saran

¶7

Rahul Thakur @ Rahul Kumar Thakur S/o Shankar Thakur R/o VillageKamta, P.S.-Baniapur, District-Saran

¶8

Ranjit Thakur @ Ranjit Kumar Thakur S/o Shankar Thakur R/o VillageKamta, P.S.-Baniapur, District-Saran

¶9

... ... Appellant/s

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Bihar

¶12

Sushila Devi W/o Rijhan Sah R/o Village-Kamta, P.S.-Baniapur, DistrictSaran

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, SPP ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶16

4 15-02-2025

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to

¶18

remove the defect(s) as pointed out by the office.

¶19

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel

¶20

for the appellants and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Special PP.

¶21

The present appeal has been filed for:-

¶22

“That this is an application for

¶23

quashing the order dated 04.06.2022 passed by Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA), Saran at Chapra in connection with SC/ST Trail No. 119/2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 63/2022 in connection with Saran Mahila P.S. Case No. 54/2021

¶24

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1998 of 2024(4) dt.15-02-2025 2/4

¶25

whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge was pleased to take cognizance against the appellants u/s 323/506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1) (r) of the SC/ST (POA), Act and directed to issue summon against them and/or for the passing of any other order or direction which is found fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

With the consent of the parties, the present appeal as also the Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024 have been taken up for final hearing.

¶27

As per the prosecution story, the complainant alleged that her husband resides outside to earn livelihood and she remains at home with three children. The allegation is that the appellants used to abuse her and throw garbage in front of her house with the purpose of forcing her to leave the place. When this was objected, on the date of occurrence, the allegation is that besides taking caste name, an abuse, they also resorted to fists and slaps. The lady was dragged in the process and as the locals arrived, they disbursed. The further allegation

¶28

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1998 of 2024(4) dt.15-02-2025 3/4

¶29

is that in the past also, they had put her ‘ palani ’ on fire.

¶30

The police investigated the matter and submitted final form putting the case to be in the category of land dispute. Thereafter, the court took up the matter and vide an order dated 04.06.2022, it recorded the reason for discarding the final form as besides the complainant two witnesses namely, Suraj Kumar and Manish Kumar supported the prosecution story. In that background, cognizance was taken under Sections 323/506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA)Act.

¶31

Aggrieved, the present appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is purely a civil dispute, Title Suit No. 375 of 2022 is also pending before the learned Sub-Judge-1, Saran at Chapra and only to put pressure, the present case. The injury report is not on record to support her case and as such, an interference is required.

¶33

Learned Special PP, on the other hand, submits that the occurrence is of the year 2021 whereas the Title Suit has been filed a year later. He submits that admittedly, it is the case of the complainant that to force her to leave the place, the occurrence took place, gets supported by the subsequent filing of the Title Suit. It is his further submission that when the

¶34

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1998 of 2024(4) dt.15-02-2025 4/4

¶35

complainant herself alleged that they used fists and slaps, absence of injury report cannot be the reason not to take cognizance in the matter.

¶36

Having heard the parties and perusing the record as also the cognizance order dated 04.06.2022, it is clear that besides the complainant, two witnesses have also supported the prosecution story. Further, as rightly pointed out by the Special PP, the Title Suit is a subsequent move and it also fortifies the dispute which led to the occurrence as recorded by the learned court below. This takes the Court to only one conclusion that the appeal is bereft of merit.

¶37

Accordingly, the present appeal as also Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024 stand dismissed.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, submits that they may have liberty to approach the court again after subsequent order(s) is/are passed by the concerned court.

¶39

Learned Special PP submits that the said opportunity is always there to any person much less the appellants.

¶40

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶41

perwez

¶42

U T

Shambhu Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar @ Katori Vs the State of Bihar

Lalbabu Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Babu Thakur @ Lalbabu Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Hari Sutihar @ Hari Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar Ray Vs the State of Bihar

Prakash Kumar @ Sohran Vs The State of Bihar