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. 4Acts & Sections Cited
7 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Indian Penal Code, 18604
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
Original Court PDF
HARENDRA YADAVvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
