Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Dilip Prasad Singh S/o Late Suresh Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's rationale for quashing the cognizance. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 2. conclusion and outcome of the appeal process. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gaya in connection with Gaya SC/ST P.S. Case No. 42 of 2022, registered under Sections 354(A)/504 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) (w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act whereby and whereunder cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 354 (A)/504 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the appellant.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant was said to have proceeded from Gaya to Bodh Gaya on tempo. A person was riding in the same tempo who disclosed his name Dilip Prasad Singh (appellant) and he made query to the informant regarding informant’s name and her caste. Thereafter, appellant assured the informant that he would arrange a job for her. It is alleged that appellant has made indecen
The appeal's outcome highlighted the necessity for a reasoned order when a trial court differs from an investigator's findings.
Cognizance of offences under specific laws requires a prima facie case, evaluated without delving into merits or defence arguments, and sufficient evidence can maintain charges.
The court ruled that allegations under the SC/ST Act must not be based on malafide intentions, emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of protective legislation.
The trial court must provide reasons for differing from the investigating officer's findings; failure to do so renders the cognizance order null and void.
A prima facie case must be established at the cognizance stage, particularly under the SC/ST Act, focusing on whether allegations, even if taken at face value, constitute an offense.
The court upheld cognizance of multiple offences against the appellant due to sufficient prima facie evidence, reaffirming that appeals should not interfere with lower court findings if justified.
The court affirmed the need for sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused at pre-trial, highlighting that mere allegations warrant trial initiation under applicable laws.
Cognizance under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is valid based on prima facie evidence, even if contradicted by the Investigating Officer's findings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
