Patna High Court

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
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
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