IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3824 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2017 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

======================================================

RAJ NARAYAN SINGH S/o Late Bhadra Singh Resident of Village-

Pipariya, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar

2. RAM JANAM RAM S/o Late Bilgu Ram Resident of Village- Pipariya, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur (Bhabua.)

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

8 03-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred for quashing the order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaimur at Bhabhua in SC/ST Registration No. 351 of 2017 arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 248 of 2017 by which the discharge application of the appellant has been dismissed.

3. The prosecution story is based on the basis of written application dated 01.11.2017 by informant Ram Janam Ram. As per informant, there was an old land dispute between him and co-accused Ram Dulare Ram. After measurement of land in question by an Amin, accused Ram Dular Ram constructed his house but when informant started work for making his house, Ram Dular Ram illegally encroached his land as a result of which a heated exchange took place between the parties which was the cause of present occurrence.

4. On the application of the informant, the present case was instituted and after investigation charge sheet was submitted u/s 341, 323, 504, 506/34 1.P.C. and u/s 3 (1) (V) (S) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, cognizance was taken under same sections on 02.08.2018 and because of the same, the appellant filed an application on 16.10.2018 u/s 227 Cr.P.C. which was heard and dismissed on 20.03.2021.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that upon bare perusal of the FIR, it will appear that no offence is made out against the appellant u/s 3 (1) (V) (S) of SC/ST Act as the occurrence has taken place because of old land dispute between the parties.

6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submits that there is case and counter case between the parties and the offence, as alleged, under the provisions of Indian Penal Code are triable by Magistrate.

7. He next submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case by the informant because of village politics and therefore the same may be quashed.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Hitesh Verma Versus State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

9. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application of the appellant and has supported the impugned order.

10. I have heard and considered the submission of the parties.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab Birani v. State of U.P. reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 has held as under:-

14. During the last couple of months, a number of judgments/orders have been pronounced by this Court, especially in cases arising from the State of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the police as well as the courts in failing to distinguish between a civil wrong in the form of a breach of contract, non- payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, the ingredients of which are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof.

15. In Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court quoted an earlier decision in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, wherein, referring to Section 420 of the IPC, it was