The Patna High Court quashed the assault case against Bettiah Ex-DM Dilip Kumar, calling the charges retaliatory, vexatious and an abuse of process in communal tension context.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against former Bettiah District Magistrate Dilip Kumar, observing that the charges filed against him were “retaliatory, vexatious and an abuse of process.”
The order, passed by Justice Sourendra Pandey on September 4, 2025, set aside a Bettiah magistrate’s 2024 order that had taken cognizance of multiple offences against Kumar under Sections 295A, 298, 323, 342, 427, 500, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Background
In August 2008, Bettiah in Bihar’s West Champaran district was gripped by communal clashes over the use of disputed land. Traditionally used by both Hindus and Muslims for religious events such as Muharram Tazia processions and Mahaviri flag observances, tensions erupted when Hindu groups sought to install a permanent Hanuman idol at the site.
The move was opposed by Muslims, leading to violence: a Mahaviri flag was torn and a local mosque vandalised. The state administration, under Home Department directions, convened a Peace Committee meeting to defuse the situation.
It was during this meeting that advocate Brajraj Srivastava, the complainant, alleged that DM Dilip Kumar had abused, assaulted, and wrongfully confined him. He further claimed mistreatment at the police station and subsequent remand under the DM’s orders.
The Complaint and Counter-Allegations
- Srivastava filed a complaint nearly a week after his release from jail, leading to a 2024 summoning order against Kumar.
- Kumar, represented by senior advocate Mriganka Datta, argued that the complaint was false, vindictive, and filed to settle scores, since Srivastava himself had been arrested for disrupting communal harmony.
- He further argued that his actions were taken in official capacity as District Magistrate, and therefore, sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory before prosecution.
ALSO READ: Rouse Avenue Court to Hear ED Money Laundering Case Against Robert Vadra on Sept 20
High Court’s Findings
After examining contemporaneous records, the Court found:
- No medical evidence or judicial records supported the claim that Srivastava had been assaulted.
- The complainant’s version was contradictory: he claimed assault at 9:30 PM, while remand records showed he was already before the Magistrate at 9:00 PM.
- Srivastava had a history of inciting communal tensions, with prior FIRs against him.
- The complaint was an afterthought filed post-release, suggesting malicious intent.
Justice Pandey emphasized:
“The petitioner was performing his duty as District Magistrate of Bettiah, a town reeling under communal clashes… The actions attributed to him, even if assumed on their face, are integrally connected with the discharge of his official functions.”
Sanction under Section 197 CrPC:
The Court reiterated the settled principle that no prosecution can be launched against a public servant without prior sanction from the competent authority if the alleged acts are connected to official duty.
Since no sanction was obtained, the Bettiah magistrate’s cognizance order was unsustainable in law.
Case Title:
Dilip Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Another
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4237 of 2025
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Sexual Harassment
