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. 1The 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. 2The 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. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the cognizance order was passed mechanicaly without the application of judicial mind
Source reference: p. 22. Whether an individual belonging to the "Lohar" caste is entitled to the protections of the SC/ST Act
Source reference: p. 33. Whether the procedural non-compliance of filing an affidavit as per the Priyanka Srivastava mandate vitiates the complaint process
Source reference: p. 2-3Law 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. 3Sunil 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. 3Mrs. 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. 2-3Reasoning
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. 2On 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. 3The 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. 2-3Holding
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. 4Original Court PDF
HARENDRA YADAVvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in