IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3354 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2018 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ======================================================

Anil Kumar @ Anil Bayahut Son of Pannalal Vyahut Resident of- Ward No.-

1, Harsidhi, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- West Champaran ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Adv : Mr. Aakash Choudhary, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 25-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present quashing appeal has been preferred to quash the order dated 21.05.2022 passed in SC/ST Case No. 360 of 2021 arising out of Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 476 of 2018 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Motihari, whereby learned Special Judge has rejected the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant for his discharge, which was preferred against the cognizance order, which was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353 and 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

3. The brief case of prosecution speaks that the informant, Satish Kumar, Circle Officer of Harsidhi Block, while he was returning on 18.11.2018 at about 6:00 PM to the Circle Office after inspecting law and order arrangements for the Chief Minister’s arrival, he reached Harsidhi Market and found heavy traffic congestion due to several vehicles and about 45 auto-rickshaws were parked on the road. When he directed the auto drivers to remove their vehicles, Anil Bayahut along with his son Anand Bayahut allegedly approached his vehicle, start abusing him, and, despite his attempt to pacify, behaved aggressively and appeared to assault him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that from the bare perusal of material available on record it can be gathered safely that driver of the informant and other witnesses have not supported the case of the informant rather they have stated that appellant has not abused and assaulted the informant, but said fact was completely ignored by learned Trial Court. It is submitted that in-fact the driver of the informant tried to puncture the auto-

rickshaw which was standing beside the road and for that appellant and other auto-rickshaw drivers raised objections, whereafter the present false case was lodged, upon completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353 and 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that from the bare perusal of FIR, it can be gathered that no criminal force was used to restrain the informant from discharging his duty being public servant and, therefore, no case under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC as alleged appears made out. It is submitted that the requirement of Section 323 of the IPC also not appears meet out.

5. While travelling over the argument learned counsel submitted that even from the perusal of the FIR it can be gathered safely that there is no whisper qua abusing informant in his caste name, rather it was alleged in very general manner that informant was abused by the appellant. It is not the case of prosecution that appellant was aware about the caste of the informant, who is C.O. and was discharging his public duty qua traffic regulations of the area. In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, [(2020) 10 SCC 710] & also State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.

6. Learned Spl.PP appearing on behalf of State, while opposing the present quashing p