Case Background
This criminal appeal was filed before the Patna High Court under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appeal challenged an order dated 31.05.2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, in SC/ST Case No. 48 of 2022. That case arose out of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 428 of 2022.
The police case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 354A, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(ii)(v)(a) of the SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police submitted a final form in favour of the appellants, concluding that the allegations made by respondent no. 2 were completely false.
Despite the police conclusion, the Special Judge took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 380, 427, 448, 354-A, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh, heard the appeal and examined the FIR, the case diary, and the impugned cognizance order.
On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that the dispute arose out of an encroachment issue relating to the passage of the appellants’ house. According to their counsel, the informant and her family members had encroached upon this passage.
During the police investigation into the encroachment, several independent witnesses were allegedly examined who supported the appellants’ version that there was an encroachment on their passage.
The appellants’ side stated that they had repeatedly requested the informant’s family to remove the encroachment. When these requests did not work, appellant no. 2 initiated an encroachment proceeding against the informant’s father-in-law.
The High Court noted the submission that on 05.05.2022, under the supervision of the Circle Officer, police officials, along with armed force and lady constables, removed the encroachment using a JCB machine and other means. It was during this official removal process, counsel argued, that respondent no. 2, Ranjan Devi, sustained injuries.
The appellants further submitted that at the time of the encroachment removal, none of them were present at the place of occurrence. After the encroachment had been removed by officers of the District Administration, respondent no. 2 lodged Madhepura P.S. Case No. 428 of 2022.
In that case, the police investigated and finally submitted a report in favour of the appellants, concluding that the allegations of respondent no. 2 were completely false. Documents relating to the encroachment proceedings were stated to have been filed as Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5 before the High Court.
Based on these circumstances, the appellants argued that respondent no. 2 had filed the case with mala fide intention and that the Special Judge had taken cognizance in a mechanical manner, amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance was placed on a previous judgment of the Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 43748 of 2013 (Vinay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.).
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 2 opposed the appeal. He submitted that there were sufficient materials against the appellants to proceed for the alleged offences. He further contended that the mother-in-law of respondent no. 2 had been brutally assaulted by the appellants and later died during the course of medical treatment, and that the Investigating Officer had intentionally withheld the post-mortem report of the deceased.
After hearing both sides, the High Court carefully perused the FIR, the case diary, and the impugned order.
The Court recorded that it was an admitted position that officials of the District Administration had removed the encroachment said to have been constructed by the family members of respondent no. 2 over the place of occurrence.
As per the FIR, the alleged assault took place on the same day as the removal proceedings, at about 10:00 PM. In that alleged occurrence, Leela Devi, mother-in-law of the informant (respondent no. 2), was said to have sustained injuries.
The High Court then compared this allegation with the medical record found in the case diary. According to the case diary, the injury report of Leela Devi showed that she had been treated at the concerned hospital at 4:45 PM on 05.05.2022.
This time of treatment was crucial. The Court reasoned that if the alleged assault on Leela Devi took place at 10:00 PM, her first treatment should logically have been after that time. However, the medical record showed treatment at 4:45 PM, well before the alleged 10:00 PM occurrence.
On this basis, the Court concluded that Leela Devi had sustained injuries before the time of the occurrence alleged in the FIR. This inconsistency, in the Court’s view, was sufficient in itself to falsify the allegations levelled by respondent no. 2 against the appellants.
Taking this aspect into account, along with the submissions regarding the official encroachment-removal proceedings and the police final form in favour of the appellants, the Court found that respondent no. 2 had lodged her case with mala fide intention.
The Court further held that if the appellants were put on trial on such allegations, it would amount to complete abuse of the process of the Court.
Another important aspect noticed by the High Court was the manner in which the Special Judge had taken cognizance. The trial court had differed from the police conclusion and proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences. However, as the Patna High Court observed, this was done “in mechanical manner without giving any reason”.
The absence of reasons was significant because, when a Magistrate or Special Judge disagrees with a police final report and decides to take cognizance, the order normally should indicate why the police conclusion is being rejected. In this case, the Patna High Court found no such reasoning in the cognizance order.
Considering all these factors together, the Court found merit in the appeal. It held that the cognizance order could not be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court set aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 by which cognizance had been taken against the appellants. As a result, the criminal proceedings based on that cognizance order stood quashed as against the appellants, and the criminal appeal was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people who may find themselves falsely implicated after an encroachment dispute or similar neighbourhood conflict.
The Patna High Court clearly said that when medical records and case diary entries do not support the timing and story in the FIR, the Court can treat the case as false and mala fide. It is not enough for a complainant to merely allege a later assault if the injuries are shown to have occurred earlier.
The decision also stresses that a trial court cannot mechanically take cognizance when the police have filed a final form in favour of the accused. If the Judge disagrees with the police, reasons must be given. Without such reasons, the order can be set aside as an abuse of process.
For accused persons facing trial under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections in Bihar, this ruling shows that higher courts will intervene where the material on record clearly contradicts the FIR and the lower court has not applied its mind.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the Special Judge validly take cognizance of offences against the appellants despite a police final form in their favour, when the FIR allegations about the timing of injuries were contradicted by the injury report?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the medical record showed the injuries occurred before the alleged incident time, falsifying the FIR, and that the Special Judge had taken cognizance mechanically and without reasons. The cognizance order was set aside. - Issue: Did the criminal case lodged by respondent no. 2 amount to abuse of the process of the Court?
Answer: Yes. The Court found that the case was lodged with mala fide intention and that putting the appellants on trial on such allegations would be a complete abuse of process.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Cr. Misc. No. 43748 of 2013 (Vinay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) – relied upon by the appellants’ counsel.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 4175 of 2023, arising out of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 428 of 2022; SC/ST Case No. 48 of 2022
Case Title: Shatrughan Bhagat & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 445
Advocates: For the appellants – Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate; For the State – Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.; For respondent no. 2 – Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging an order of cognizance passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act.
Date of Judgment: 15.04.2024
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MjQjNDE3NSMyMDIzIzEjTg==-t4CLPhHamLs=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
