Patna High Court – Orders
Subodh Pratap Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 13 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1221 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2022 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
SUBODH PRATAP SINGH SON OF UMAKANT SINGH R/O-SSP, HEAD
POST OFFICE, CHHAPRA, P.S.-CHHAPRA (TOWN), DISTT.-SARAN,
CHHAPRA (AS PER FIR). R/O-CHAUBEY TOLA, P.S.-CHANPATIYA
(KUMARBAGH O.P), DISTT.-WEST CHAMPARAN
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar BIHAR
2. MAMTA KUMARI WIFE OF LATE NARESH HARIJAN R/O-CHAIKUL,
P.S.-MANJHI, DISTT.-SARAN, CHHAPRA, PRESENT ADDRESS-
POSTMAN, MAIN POST OFFICE, CHHAPRA, P.S.-CHHAPRA (TOWN),
DISTT.-SARAN, CHHAPRA
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, App.
For the Informant : Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
9 13-03-2026
1. The appellant who is posted as Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, Saran at Chapra has filed the
present appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2024
passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Chapra,
Saran in connection with SC/ST Trial No. 184 of 2022 whereby
the learned Court has rejected the petition filed by the appellant
under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge. An FIR was
lodged bearing Chapra Town PS Case No. 413 of 2021 under
Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 504, 506, 120B of the IPC and
section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
2/12
2. The FIR was lodged on 02.08.2021 for an
occurrence which allegedly took place on 18.06.2021 and
19.06.2021, stating that all the employees in Chapra Head
Office and Office of the appellant mobilized in the organized
way and framed a fake charge against the informant/respondent
no. 2, and accordingly, the In-charge Postmaster handed over
the suspension letter to the informant, i.e. respondent no. 2, and
prevented her from performing her duty illegally. The
suspension letter was issued on 18.06.2021 and the same was
served to respondent no. 2 on 19.06.2021.
3. The appellant who was Senior Superintendent of
Post Offices, Chapra, Saran, along with Head Postmaster and
Assistant Postmaster and Circle Inspector, have been named in
the FIR alleging that all harassed the informant/respondent no.
2, on the basis of the fake suspension letter. On 18.06.2021, at
about 5 p.m., they misbehaved and committed obscene act
against respondent no. 2 within the campus of office of the
appellant. The reason behind the incident, as per the informant,
is that she had complained against the accused persons on
19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021 when they had teased her and
abused her by taking caste name and prevented her from
performing her duty. The Departmental Regional Office is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
3/12
helping indirectly to the accused persons. She has been targeted
and harassed in the department only because she has raised her
voice to protect her prestige and dignity.
4. The police investigated the case and submitted final
form finding the case untrue and exonerated all the accused
persons. The final form was submitted on 15.09.2021. A protest
petition was filed earlier on 06.08.2021 stating therein the same
story as was stated in the FIR and the respondent no. 2 also
raised grievances against the police officials.
5. The learned Special Court treated the protest
petition as a complaint and after examination of the respondent
no. 2 on S.A., took cognizance against the appellant and others
under Section 354, 504 of the IPC and 3(1)(S) of SC/ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act.
6. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, argued that the appellant was
appointed through Union Public Service Commission as an
officer of Indian Postal Service. He was posted, at the relevant
point of time, as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices having a
separate office. On the charge of dereliction of duty, respondent
No. 2 was suspended by Senior Post master vide his letter dated
18.06.2021 and departmental proceeding was initiated against
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
4/12
respondent No. 2 for the charges relating to dereliction of duty.
For holding departmental inquiry against respondent No. 2
imputation of misconduct and misbehavior, was served against
opposite party No. 2 on 07.06.2021 disclosing the charges inter-
alia on the fact that she refused to take six parcel articles for its
delivery which were meant for her beat.
7. It has further been submitted by the appellant that
after the suspension letter was issued against the respondent no.
2 on 18.06.2021 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the
appellant being the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, the
present FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 with malicious
intention and in retaliation of the suspension order issued by the
Senior Post Master.
8. The respondent no. 2 had also made a complaint
against the appellant and other employees with the allegation of
sexual harassment at workplace for which inquiry committee
was formed of four persons namely Mr. Alok Kumar, SPOs,
Siwan Dn. Cum Chairman of Enquiry Team, Smt. Usha Kumari,
ASP(Dn.), Saran Division, Chapra, Mr. Santosh Kumar,
ASP(West), Sub-Dn. Bettiah and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh,
IP(Vig), RO Muzaffarpur. The inquiry committee after proper
inquiry came to the conclusion that Mamta Kumari, Postman,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
5/12
Chapra H.O. i.e., respondent no. 2, has tried to hijack the system
and has misused the provisions of sexual harassment with
women at workplace and the provisions of Atrocities Act
miserably. The committee also concluded that she has made
false allegations against the administration and her superior
officers just to get the desired posting and to avoid her work.
The police also, after thorough investigation, came to the
conclusion that the case lodged by respondent no. 2 against high
and other officials is not true. In protest-cum-complaint petition,
the similar allegation has been made, which does not disclose
any criminal offence, much less an offence under SC/ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act. In her S.A., she has also stated that
on 19.06.2021, when suspension letter was served upon her, she
went to the police and lodged FIR in Town PS Chapra.
9. The learned Special Court, without appreciating the
facts in entirety and without any prima facie material against the
appellant under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and the fact
that prosecution lodged against the appellant is malicious in
order to take vengeance against the high officials of the
department for suspending and initiating departmental
proceeding against respondent no. 2, rejected the discharge
petition.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
6/12
10. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in Konde Nageshwar Rao
v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty and anr (Criminal Appeal No.
555 of 2018) and State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal
and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Nandan Bharti,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 argued that the
protest petition filed by the informant/respondent No. 2, was
treated as complaint and after examination of the
complainant/informant on S.A. and the examination of
witnesses, the learned Special Court took cognizance against the
appellant and others under the provisions of 3(1)(s) under
SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and other Sections of IPC.
The Special Court in the impugned order has taken note of the
fact that there is sufficient material against the appellant for
framing of the charges.
12. At the time of framing of charge, the court is not
required to meticulously examine the materials/evidence on
record, but only has to see that prima facie materials are
available for framing of charge. The learned Special Court has
rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the discharge
petition of the appellant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
7/12
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record, including
the impugned order.
14. It is an admitted position that appellant is senior
officer posted as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices at
Chapra. The respondent no. 2 is a postman posted in Chapra
post office. It also appears that for dereliction of duty, the
respondent no. 2 was suspended by Senior Postmaster, Head
Office Chapra on 18.6.2021 and the suspension letter was
served upon her on 19.6.2021. A copy of the suspension letter
was forwarded to the appellant as he was the senior most officer
posted in the area.
15. The appellant is a member of Indian Postal
Service having a separate office of Senior Superintendent of
Post Offices. The allegation of sexual harassment made by the
respondent no. 2 against the appellant and other officials of the
postal department was also inquired into by a committee and the
committee came to the conclusion that respondent no. 2,
Postman, Chapra, head office, has tried to hijack the system and
has misused the provisions of Prevention of Sexual Harassment
with Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and the provisions of
SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The report of the committee
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
8/12
is dated 27.07.2021. This Court also finds that after the order of
suspension and service of memo of charge upon respondent no.
2 on 18.06.2021, 19.06.2021, she lodged the FIR on 02.08.2021.
From plain reading of protest cum complaint petition and the
S.A. of respondent no. 2, it appears that respondent no. 2 has
said in her SA that after receipt of the suspension letter on
19.06.2021, she has lodged the FIR.
16. In a judgment rendered in Saleb alias Shalu alias
Salim v. The State of UP and others reported in (2023) 20
SCC 194 at paragraph 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR
or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then
in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely. It is so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
9/12
all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous
or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation.
17. In Konde Nageshwar Rao (supra), in paragraph
no. 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the
judgment of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
Maharashtra, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized
that merely because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
10/12
Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground for
prosecution. The offences alleged must have been committed
solely on the basis of the victim’s caste status. Misuse of the
statute to settle personal scores or to harass individuals cannot
be permitted if it is apparent. The Court should in such situation
be not hesitant to step in and stop the said misuse. Prosecution
needs to be quashed at an early stage to prevent undue
harassment of the accused where there is clear legal infirmity in
the prosecution case, such as the allegations, even if taken at
their face value, do not disclose an offence or the entire case is a
bad faith exercise weaponized to settle personal scores, rather
than seeking justice.
18. The court has also observed in paragraph 24 that
there has been an alarming increase in false complaints under
the SC/ST Act, particularly against public servants and judicial
officers with an oblique motive to settle personal scores or to
harass individuals. Such acts cannot be allowed to be
perpetuated and need to be stopped at the very outset so that
there is no miscarriage of justice.
19. In the present case, the appellant is admittedly a
public servant and member of Indian Postal Service and holding
the high post in the area where the complainant/informant is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
11/12
posted as postman in a post office. The attending circumstances
of the case disclose that the respondent/informant was not
discharging her duties properly and for dereliction of duty she
was suspended and departmental proceeding was initiated. Only
because the order of suspension and decision to hold
departmental proceeding was forwarded in the official capacity
to the appellant, the entire officials working in the postal
department including the appellant has been made accused.
20. Considering the materials available in totality, it
appears that the prosecution has been launched by the
respondent no. 2 in order to take vengeance and with malice
intentions. In the case of State of Haryana and Others versus
Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 SUPP 1 SCC 335,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that where a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the prosecution
can be quashed.
21. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and
circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the
prosecution has been lodged against the appellant for taking
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1221 of 2024(9) dt.13-03-2026
12/12
vengeance with a view to spite the appellant on the basis of the
fact that respondent no. 2 was suspended and departmental
proceeding was initiated against her and a copy of which was
forwarded to the appellant in his official capacity.
22. In the result, the impugned order dated 07.02.2024
passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Chapra,
Saran in connection with SC/ST Trial No. 184 of 2022 is
quashed. Allowing the proceeding to continue further will cause
abuse of the process of Court and miscarriage of justice to the
appellant.
23. Accordingly, the entire prosecution is also
quashed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
harshpandey/-
U