Allowed¶26

M.s. Haider Alias Md Sultan Haider v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2025CR. APP (SJ)/5559/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.5559 of 2023, decided 01-07-2025 (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J): quashing of cognizance order dated 01.09.2023 of ADJ-I, Sheikhpura in Complaint SC/ST Case No. 54C of 2021 under IPC ss.452/380/354/504/506/34, SC/ST Act ss.3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va), and Arms Act s.27; complaint held retaliatory counter-case to Barbigha PS Case No. 237 of 2021 lodged by appellant no. 2; land dispute between parties; SP report (Annexure-3); Sheikhpura.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance order dated 01.09.2023 passed by learned ADJ-I, Sheikhpura in Complaint SC/ST Case No. 54C of 2021 quashed; appeal allowed. ¶26

M.s. Haider Alias Md Sultan Haider Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5559 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2021 Thana- SHEKHPURA COMPLAINT CASE District- Sheikhpura

¶3

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

¶4

M.s. Haider Alias Md Sultan Haider Son of Md Azimuddin haider resident of village Ramzanpur PS Barbigha district -Sheikhpura, presently residing at Mohalla- Dujra, p.s.- Buddha colony, Distt.- Patna

¶5

Arsada khatoon @ Arshada khatoon d-o- Md. Shoib, w/o- M.S.Haider resident of village Ramzanpur PS Barbigha district -Sheikhpura, presently residing at Mohalla- Dujra, p.s.- Buddha colony, Distt.- Patna

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Sanju Devi w/o- Rajesh paswan R/o village- Ramzanpur, p.s.- Barbigha, district- Sheikhpura

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate Mr. Md. Irshad, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

7 01-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

This appeal has been preferred against the order

¶16

dated 01.09.2023 passed in SC/ST- 54C/ 2021 by A.D.J.-I, Sheikhpura by which he has taken cognizance against the appellants u/s 452, 380, 354, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of A.D.J.-I, Sheikhpura.

¶17

The complainant made allegation that the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5559 of 2023(7) dt.01-07-2025 2/3

¶19

appellants along with four- five unknown persons having pistols and rifles in their hands, entered into her house, outraged her modesty and took away sarees, gold ornaments etc. and the appellant no. 1 took away Rs. 95,000/-.

¶20

The learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that there was land dispute between the parties and appellant no. 2, prior to lodging of the present FIR, had filed Barbigha P.S. Case No. 237 of 2021 dated 07.08.2021 against the members of the prosecution party, in which, it has been averred that husband of the complainant forcibly occupied the land of the appellants and has demanded the ransom for releasing and removing their forceful occupation from that land. Annexure-3 is the report submitted by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura in which it has been mentioned that in order to save their skin from the previously lodged case by the appellant no. 2, the present complaint petition has been filed.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant submits that the appellants are affluent whereas the complainant side are poor persons.

¶22

From perusal of the record, it appears that prior to lodging of the present complaint, appellant no. 2 has lodged

¶23

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5559 of 2023(7) dt.01-07-2025 3/3

¶24

case against the defence side in which it has been admitted by the appellant no. 2 that husband of the complainant, namely, Rajesh Paswan is involved in anti-social elements.

¶25

It appears that the present complaint has been filed in retaliation to the earlier case lodged by appellant no. 2 and it also appears that there is land dispute between the parties

¶26

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 passed by learned ADJ-I, Sheikhpura in Complaint SC/ST Case No. 54C of 2021 is quashed and the appeal is allowed.

¶27

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶28

priyanka/-

M.s. Haider Alias Md Sultan Haider v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.s. Haider Alias Md Sultan Haider v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jadolal Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Niraj Kumar @ Niraj chauhan Vs The State of Bihar

Manikant Paswan @ Manikant Kumar @ Manikant Kr. Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Pravin Yadav @ Pravin Prakash Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Mahto @ Kishun Mahto @ Kishun Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Bihar