IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1101 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2020 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani ======================================================

1. MANOJ THAKUR S/o Harishchandra Thakur Resident of Village-

Shivipatti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.

2. HARISHCHANDRA THAKUR S/o Late Kailu Thakur Resident of Village-

Shivipatti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.

3. SUNIL THAKUR @ SUNIL KUMAR JHA S/o Dhaneshwar Jha Resident of Village- Shivipatti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar

2. RAMDEO PASWAN S/o Late Mauji Paswan Resident of Village- Shivipatti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

5 02-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is filed against the order dated

08.09.2021 passed by learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge- 1st-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Madhubani in C.R. 54/2020, T.R. 1404/2021 whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 341, 527, 504, 379/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the appellants.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant and appellants are co-villagers. A Saleh Temple for SC/ST people exists adjacent to appellant no. 1’s land. The appellant wanted to encroach the temple’s land. When the community opposed this, the appellants threatened the complainant with dire consequences and a Panchayat was held that found the appellants guilty.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the learned Special Court SC/St Act, Madhubani took cognizance of offence on 08.09.2021 and summoned the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is case of civil dispute and no offence under Section SC/ST Act is made out.

6. 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.

7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellants and has supported the impugned order.

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

9. Further, in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under: 11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26-1-

2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:

“3. (1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;”

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “(1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view”.

13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either t