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.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 24-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Madhubani in connection with Arer P.S. Case No. 126 of 2021, G.R. No. 170 of 2021 registered under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 325, 379, 354, 504, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act whereby the concerned court has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent no. 2/ informant gave her fardbeyan stating therein that on 01.12.2021 at 8:15 AM, informant was returning to her house after getting the wheat grinded and when she came at the door of co-accused Chande Pandey, said co-accused Chandey Pandey started abusing the informant by taking her caste name and when same was protested, appellant came with Tengari in his hand and started abusing the informant by taking her caste name and also assaulted upon the head of informant by means of Tengari due to which informant sustained injury. It is further alleged that co-accused Luv Pandey pulled her saree due to which informant became undressed. It is further alleged that co- accused Luv Pandey muffled saree around the neck of informant and tightened it due to which she started suffocating. Informant made hulla upon which nearby people and informant's brother-in-law (dewar) came there, meanwhile all the accused persons assaulted the informant by means of fists and legs and thrashed her on the ground and Rs. 5,000/- was also snatched from the informant. The informant was sent to hospital for treatment.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Arer P.S. Case No. 126 of 2021 has been registered under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 325, 379, 354, 504, 34 of the IPC and Section

3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is quite innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, has not taken place in public view and hence, no case under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. He further submits that the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has given clean chit to co-accused Chande Pandey and Lab Pandey whereas charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. He further submits that injured sustained simple injury. He further submits that the concerned court has not taken into account the material available on record and reached to the wrong conclusion and dismissed the discharge petition in a mechanical manner and hence, same is fit to be quashed.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that from perusal of the FIR itself, it is evident that appellant abused the informant by taking her caste name and also assaulted upon the head of informant by means of Tengari due to which informant sustained injury. He further submits that the accusation, as alleged in the FIR, clearly reflects that occurrence took place in public gaze and hence, contention of learned counsel for the appellant is neither tenable nor sustainable in the light of the accusation made in the FIR. He further submits that the investigating officer after making investigation on all points submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and accordingly, cognizance has been taken under the said sections. He further submits that the concerned court while passing order on 07.05.2025 has discussed para-2 (restatement of informant) as well as para 04, 07, 08, 21, 22, 47 and 43 of the case diary in which witnesses have supported the occurr