Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 24-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

By way of present application, the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by learned 1^st Additional Session Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Kaimur at Bhabua in Complaint Case No.10/2022 has been challenged, whereby the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

The present case arises out of complaint alleging that on 30.01.2014, opposite party no.2, proprietor of Jai Maa Kali Rice Mill, approached the complainant and requested rice and paddy on credit, assuring that the amount would be paid after sale. Relying on their acquaintance and trust, the complainant supplied 17 trucks of Mansuri rice under Bills No. 1 to 17 between 30.01.2014 and 08.02.2014, for a total value of Rs. 52,82,803/-. Out of this amount, Rs.36,16,000/- was paid on different dates, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.16,66,803/-. When the complainant demanded payment, an agreement was executed on 31.07.2016 in the presence of witnesses, whereby the accused agreed to clear the outstanding amount by January 2017. However, despite the agreement, the amount remained unpaid. On 03.12.2021 at about 11:00 a.m., when the complainant went to the accused's premises to demand payment of Rs.16,66,803/-, opposite parties no.2 and 3 abused and assaulted him and used derogatory caste-based abuses.

On the basis of the above-mentioned allegations, Complaint Case No.10 of 2022 alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was filed before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special (SC/ST) Judge, Kaimur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, whereby the complaint of the petitioner has been dismissed, is totally illegal and unjust inasmuch as, the complaint along with Solemn Affirmation of the complainant as well as two inquiry witnesses, clearly makes out a case against the opposite parties no.2 and 3. It is further submitted that the said complaint has been dismissed on erroneous grounds by stating that the incident did not take place at the public place, but the place of occurrence is a boundary wall of the rice mill which is almost under the open sky having several staffs and as such, the utterance made by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 in the form of caste based abuses cannot be ignored and overlooked.

Further submission is that the occurrence is admitted by the inquiry witnesses and the learned Special Court has wrongly stated the incident to be a case of free fight with certain abuses not attracting a criminal offence. It has also been submitted that offence under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out and non taking of cognizance, rather dismissal of the complaint, is totally unjust and the said order is fit to be quashed. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed in the complaint petition.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the present application by stating that the order dated 13.12.2022 is a well reasoned order discussing the entire materials on record. As such, there is no occasion for interfering with the said order of the learned Special Court whereby he has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C..

I have heard the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties and I have also perused the materials on record. After having gone through the complaint, it appears that admittedly there were business transaction between the complainant (petitioner) and the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and in course of such transaction, an amount of Rs.36,16,000/- out of a total of Rs.52,82,803 was paid by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3, while an amount of Rs.16,66,803/- remained outstanding, with regard to which, a compromise had been entered between the parties in the year 2017. However, the second part of allegations indicate that on 03.12.2020, when the petitioner went to the house of opposite party no.2 for the purposes of asking money, both the opposite parties no.2 and 3 indulged in hurling abuses and assaulting the petitioner and also used caste based abuses. It has been further indicated that since the police did not register an FIR, the present complaint was filed. Further, the S.A. of the complainant also indicates that the main dispute was with regard to money and allegations of hurling caste based abuses has also been levelled. However, upon Court query, it has been replied that the present case was lodged for money and when the said money was asked, abuses and acts of assault were also taken recourse to, by the opposite parties no.2 and 3.

It appears from the statements of inquiry witnesses also that the dispute is with regard to some outstanding due in the business transactions and additionally some allegations with regard to hurling abuses and assault has also been levelled. So far as witness no.1 is concerned, he has only stated that the opposite party no.2 indulged in some caste based abuses. However, upon a Court question, it was clearly answered that this case was filed for the purpose of recovering the outstanding amount of Rs.16,66,803/- which was due against the opposite parties no.2 and 3. However, witness no.2 upon Court query has stated that the present case was for hurling of abuses, but in his statement, he has also indicated the dispute with regard to money.

Upon going through the entire complaint along with S.A. and the deposition of the inquiry witnesses, the clear cut impression gathered is that the present complaint was basically filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,66,803/-, which has been expressly accepted by the inquiry witness no.1 and some allegations relating to hurling of abuses and some acts of assault would not entail criminal prosecution, when the primary dispute with regard to money transaction is apparent and totally visible from the materials on record. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held on the said issue in the case of Bimla Tiwari vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 607, that the process of criminal law cannot be utilized for arm-trusting and money recovery.

So far as the submission with regard to use of caste based abuses is concerned, the same also has to be seen in the light of the fact that the occurrence took place at the house of opposite party no.2, which was not a public place and this consideration has also weighed with the Special Court for reaching the conclusion of dismissing the complaint.

It is noted that it has nowhere been stated that alleged caste-based abuses were uttered in the presence or hearing of members of the public, rather the place of occurrence has been stated to be the house of O.P. No.2. Recently, in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan vs. State of U.P., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1676, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the essential ingredients of Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act, has held that the basic ingredients of the offence must emerge from the material placed before the Court and taking into account that the alleged caste-based insult or intimidation occurred at a place within public view was not borne out by the material on record, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question, stood quashed.

In the backdrop of the purely civil dispute between the parties relating to business transactions and accounting dispute, with some allegations of hurling abuses and assault, this Court would not proceed to interfere with the order dated 13.12.2022. Moreover, in the backdrop of the fact that the allegations pertaining to the SC/ST Act would also not hold good in view of the fact that the alleged occurrence took place at the house of the opposite party no.2 and not at public place or within public view.

This Court is conscious of the fact that certain cases are filed with malafide intention and oblique motives and upon a bare reading of the entire material on record, it is clear that the present case is out and out a malicious prosecution, primarily relating to dispute between the parties with regard to the outstanding amount in course of the business transaction. Malafide prosecution falls within one of the categories of the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. Thus, considering the category no.7 and taking aid of Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court finds no justification and no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.12.2022, as such, the present application stands dismissed.