IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3204 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2019 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura ======================================================

Surendra Mohan Singh @ Pintu Singh Son of Late Satyanand Singh Resident of Village - Basantpur, P.s.- Shankarpur, Distt.- Madhepura.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sunil Rishidev Son of Jayram Rishidev Resident of Village - Basantpur , Ward No.16, P.S.- Shankarpur, Distt.- Madhepura.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv : Ms. Pooja Prasad, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.PP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 25-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present quashing has been preferred to quash the order dated 06.07.2022 passed in SC/ST Case No. 228 of 2019 arising out of Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019, where learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Madhepura took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant.

3. The brief case of prosecution speaks that on

07.10.2019 at about 6 PM, while the informant was returning home on his motorcycle and so when reach, near to the house of the former Mukhiya at Basantpur, Pankaj Singh’s nephew, riding a bicycle rashly, collided and fell; after being scolded, the informant went home. Later, Pankaj Singh allegedly brought the informant to his house, abused him, tied him with a rope, and assaulted him with lathi and danda, joined by Pintu Singh who also assaulted him. They allegedly took ₹30,000/- his mobile phone, and kept his motorcycle and left him injured, after some time his family members took him to the hospital for treatment.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written report FIR has been lodged, which has been registered as Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 54 of the IPC and Section

3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that after investigation IO has not found case true against co-accused Satto Chaudhary and he was not sent up for facing trial, whereas on the basis of almost same materials submitted charge-sheet under Section 31, 323 and 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3(i) of the SC/ST Act against appellant and co-accused Pankaj Singh through charge-sheet no. 154 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019. It is pointed out that learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, taking different note took cognizance against all three accused persons including appellant under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that present occurrence took place in the background of accident, where FIR in issue was lodged with the delay of two days i.e., for occurrence dated 07.10.2009, FIR in issue was lodged on 09.10.2009. It is submitted that no injury was found upon injured and with very general and omnibus allegation, the appellant was implicated with same allegation as raised against co-accused Satto Chaudhary against whom police submitted final form, but fairly conceded that he is not the appellant. It is also submitted that except informant no one is the eye-witness of the occurrence, whereas as per seizure list the motorcycle of informant was recovered from the door of one Laltun Das not from the possession of the appellant. It is submitted that recovery of looted mobile and cash was neither made from the conscious possession of the appellant nor from his house. In view of this impugned cognizance order appears bad in the eyes of law and, therefore, continuing with any further proceeding would only amount to abuse the process of Court of law and, therefore, impugned cognizance order dated

06.07.2022