Patna High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Cognizance under the SC/ST Act is impermissible if the complainant does not belong to a protected community.

HARENDRA YADAV vs The State of Bihar

Patna High CourtJUDGMENT: July 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Cognizance under the SC/ST Act is impermissible if the complainant does not belong to a protected community.. HARENDRA YADAV vs The State of Bihar. Patna High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Appellants challenged a cognizance order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Siwan, in Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 346 of 2017

Source reference: p. 1

The case originated from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 (Shivji Lohar) regarding a fishing dispute, alleging offenses under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act

Source reference: p. 2

The Appellants contended that the complaint was filed with a three-and-a-half-month delay without explanation, failed to comply with the mandatory affidavit requirement under Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., and that the complainant did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe

Source reference: p. 2-3
02

Issues

1. Whether the cognizance order was passed mechanicaly without the application of judicial mind

Source reference: p. 2

2. Whether an individual belonging to the "Lohar" caste is entitled to the protections of the SC/ST Act

Source reference: p. 3

3. Whether the procedural non-compliance of filing an affidavit as per the Priyanka Srivastava mandate vitiates the complaint process

Source reference: p. 2-3
03

Law Applied

Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which requires the victim to belong to a protected community

Source reference: p. 3

Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1052 of 2021), which settled that the "Lohar" caste does not fall within the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes

Source reference: p. 3

Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 287, requiring a supporting affidavit when a complaint seeks a police investigation under Section 154(3) CrPC

Source reference: p. 2-3
04

Reasoning

The Court observed that the impugned order appeared to be in a pre-typed format with only the word "cognizance" inserted, indicating a "negligent and mechanical approach" by the trial court

Source reference: p. 2

On the merits, the Court found that Respondent No. 2, being of the "Lohar" community, is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the fundamental prerequisite for invoking the SC/ST Act was absent

Source reference: p. 3

The Court also noted the procedural defect regarding the lack of an affidavit and the unexplained delay of three and a half months in filing the complaint. Consequently, the Court held that the trial court failed to apply its judicial mind when taking cognizance of the offenses, particularly under the SC/ST Act

Source reference: p. 2-3
05

Holding

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the cognizance order dated 07.11.2019. It held that since the complainant is not a member of the SC/ST community, the foundation for charges under the SC/ST Act was nonexistent

The learned trial court was directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance in accordance with the law and on the merits of the IPC offenses without being prejudiced by this judgment

Source reference: p. 4
06

Acts & Sections Cited

7 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732

Patna High Court

Original Court PDF

HARENDRA YADAVvsThe State of Bihar

Patna High Court · July 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment