Patna High Court – Orders
Aurangzeb @ Aurangzeb Mallick vs The State Of Bihar on 2 July, 2026
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3249 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2024 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Aurangzeb @ Aurangzeb Mallick, S/O Late Ainul Haque, R/O Vill - Rais,
P.S.- Pakribarawan, Distt.- Nawada
2. Rashid Alam @ Md Rashid Hussain, S/O Aurangzeb Mallick @ Aurangzeb
R/O Vill - Rais, P.S.- Pakribarawan, Distt.- Nawada
3. Kashif Zeb @ Md Kashif Zeb, S/O Aurangzeb Mallick @ Aurangzeb R/O
Vill - Rais, P.S.- Pakribarawan, Distt.- Nawada
4. Tahir Zeb @ Md Tahir Mallick @ Md Tahir, S/O Aurangzeb Mallick @
Aurangzeb, R/O Vill - Rais, P.S.- Pakribarawan, Distt.- Nawada
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Swaroop Manjhi S/o Chamari Manjhi R/o vill- Rais, Musahri, P.S.-
Pakribarawan, Distt.- Nawada
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate
Ms. Chitrangda Mustafa, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Abu Nasar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 02-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned Spl. P.P. for the
State.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section
14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the “SC/ST Act”),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3249 of 2025(5) dt.02-07-2026
2/5
against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned
Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Nawada, whereby
cognizance has been taken against the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the “IPC“)
and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, in
connection with Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 29 of 2024 dated
15.01.2024, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, submits that the impugned order taking
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)
(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was passed in a mechanical
manner without appreciating the evidences and materials
collected by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that
merely by placing reliance on the re-statement of the informant
and his wife, cognizance of the alleged offences was taken and
the appellants were summoned, whereas the police had
exonerated appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the allegations and
submitted charge-sheet only against appellant no. 1. However,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3249 of 2025(5) dt.02-07-2026
3/5
all the offences under the IPC, of which cognizance has been
taken, are compoundable and, at present, cordial relations have
been established between the parties and they have also filed a
compromise petition bearing the signatures of the informant and
all the so-called injured persons. As far as the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act are concerned, the FIR itself shows that the allegations
pertaining to the said offences are general and omnibus in
nature, without attributing any specific role to any of the
appellants but the said aspect was not properly appreciated. It is
further submitted that the informant was an employee of one
Alam Mallick, who is the full brother of appellant no. 1. There
was strained relation between them, and they had lodged cases
against each other. Altogether, four criminal cases were
instituted between the parties. One staff (employee) of appellant
no. 1 also lodged a criminal case under the SC/ST Act and other
provisions of the IPC against the prosecution party.
Subsequently, good sense prevailed between the parties, and
now they have compromised all the aforesaid cases.
4. Mr. Abu Nasar, learned counsel appearing for the
informant, while referring to the statements made in paragraph
nos. 3 to 7 of the counter-affidavit, has accepted the factum of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3249 of 2025(5) dt.02-07-2026
4/5
compromise between the parties. He also submits that
respondent no. 2 sustained only one simple and superficial
injury. He has further accepted that both the parties lodged cases
against each other due to rivalry and that the FIR in the present
matter was instituted by the informant at the instance of his
employer, Alam Mallick.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and, mainly,
taking note of the compromise made by both the parties, which
is relevant in respect of the compoundable offences under the
IPC of which cognizance has been taken and so far as the
offences under the SC/ST Act, of which cognizance has also
been taken by the impugned order, are concerned, there is no
specific allegation against any of the appellants, further, the
admitted rivalry between both the parties was the main reason
for institution of four cases against each other by both the
parties and in the backdrop of the above circumstances and
developments that have taken place between both the parties, it
would not be proper and just to subject the appellants to trial for
the alleged offences. Accordingly, the order impugned dated
07.03.2025 passed in Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 29 of 2024 by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Nawada, taking cognizance of the alleged offences, is hereby set
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3249 of 2025(5) dt.02-07-2026
5/5
aside and the instant appeal stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
U T
