HARENDRA YADAV vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1724 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2017 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
1. HARENDRA YADAV Son of Jagdish Yadav @ jagdish Chaudhari Resident
of Village - Khanpur Khairati, P.S.- Hussainganj, Distt.- Siwan.
2. Nand Kumar Yadav @ Ram Kumar Yadav @ Ram Kumar Chaudhari Son of
Jagdish Yadav @ Jagdish Chaudhari Resident of Village - Khanpur Khairati,
P.S.- Hussainganj, Distt.- Siwan.
3. Bipin Kumar Yadav Son of Nand Kumar Yadav @ Ram Kumar Yadav @
Ram Kumar Chaudhari Resident of Village - Khanpur Khairati, P.S.-
Hussainganj, Distt.- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. SHIVJI LOHAR @ SHIVJI SHARMA Son of Late Baldeo Lohar @ Baldeo
Sharma Resident of Village - Khanpur Khairati, P.S.- Hussainganj, Distt.-
Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari-1, SPP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-07-2026
Heard the parties.
2. This Appeal has been preferred against the cognizance
order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Siwan, in connection with
Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 346 of 2017, whereby the cognizance of
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act has been taken against the
appellants.
3. Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants,
submits that the impugned order is in a typed format, with only the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1724 of 2021 dt.16-07-2026
2/4
word " संजान " inserted separately, while the remaining portion is pre-
typed, which reflects the negligent and mechanical approach adopted
by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order. Learned
counsel further submits that there was a fishing dispute between the
appellants and respondent no. 2, along with others, on the alleged
date of occurrence. On the same day, both parties filed separate
applications under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of
preventive proceedings against each other, copies whereof have been
brought on record as Annexure-2. However, in the said application,
respondent no. 2 made no reference whatsoever to the alleged
occurrence subsequently narrated in the complaint petition, which
came to be filed after a delay of three and a half months from the
date of the alleged occurrence, without furnishing any satisfactory
explanation for such delay. It is further submitted that it is a settled
proposition of law that where an information disclosing the
commission of a cognizable offence is not acted upon by the
concerned police station, the aggrieved person is required to first
exhaust the remedies available under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
before approaching the Magistrate. In such circumstances, where a
complaint is filed with a prayer for referring the matter to the police
for investigation, the complainant is required to file an affidavit in
support thereof, as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs.
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2015)

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1724 of 2021 dt.16-07-2026
3/4
6 SCC 287. However, in the present case, respondent no. 2 filed the
complaint without swearing any such affidavit, thereby rendering the
complaint procedurally defective. Lastly, learned counsel submits
that, by the impugned order, the learned trial court has taken
cognizance of the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
along with other offences under the IPC. However, respondent no. 2,
who is the principal aggrieved person, does not belong to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. This legal position
has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Rai &
Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., decided in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1052 of 2021.
4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State opposes the appeal but fairly concedes that the caste "Lohar"
does not fall within the category of either Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes.
5. Having considered the above submissions and upon
perusal of the impugned order, the materials available in the case
diary, and the FIR based on the complaint, this Court finds that the
learned trial court failed to apply its judicial mind, particularly while
taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act. Since respondent no. 2 admittedly does not belong to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, the very foundation
for taking cognizance under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1724 of 2021 dt.16-07-2026
4/4
absent. Consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and is, accordingly, set aside.
6. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. The
learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order on the point of
cognizance in accordance with law and on the merits of the case
without being prejudiced with this order.

(Shailendra Singh, J)
siddharthkr/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 20.07.2026
Transmission Date 20.07.2026