Last Updated:
The issue began when communal clashes occurred over a disputed patch of land used by both Hindus and Muslims for religious observances
The court quashed criminal proceedings against Dilip Kumar who, in 2008, was posted as Bettiah’s District Magistrate.
Seventeen years after an advocate accused a serving district magistrate of assault and abuse, the Patna High Court has brought the long-running case to an end. Calling the complaint “retaliatory” and “an abuse of process”, the court quashed criminal proceedings against Dilip Kumar who, in 2008, was posted as Bettiah’s District Magistrate.
The complaint, filed by advocate Brajraj Srivastava, had led to cognizance being taken last year by a magistrate in West Champaran for offences, including assault, wrongful confinement, defamation, and outraging religious sentiments.
Recommended Stories
The high court bench of Justice Sourendra Pandey on September 4, however, ruled that the prosecution could not continue without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which shields public servants from being dragged to court for actions linked to their official duties.
In August 2008, communal clashes occurred over a disputed patch of land used by both Hindus and Muslims for religious observances. Tensions boiled over when attempts were made to install a permanent Hanuman idol on the site, prompting retaliation that saw a Mahaviri flag torn and a village mosque vandalised.
Alarmed, the state home department instructed the district administration to step in. Dilip Kumar convened peace meetings and, on August 12, 2008, community leaders agreed in writing that the land would be used for public facilities like a school and a dispensary instead of religious structures.
Srivastava, however, alleged that when he raised objections at the meeting, Kumar abused him, called him communal, tore his shirt collar, and later had him beaten and locked up.
However, an FIR was lodged by the Block Development Officer the same day accusing Srivastava of storming the peace meeting with dozens of men, abusing members of the Muslim community, and disrupting proceedings. He was arrested and remanded to custody.
Medical reports from the day showed no injuries, and the remand order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded that Srivastava “did not complain of any injury”. Jail records also showed no health complaints during his three-day detention. It was only after his release that Srivastava filed the complaint against the DM.
The complaint was dismissed twice by lower courts for want of sanction to prosecute a public servant, before being revived by the high court in 2010. The Supreme Court in 2023 remanded the matter for fresh inquiry, leading to summons being issued in 2024.
Kumar challenged that order, arguing that the case was vindictive and designed to settle scores after the administration had acted against Srivastava. His counsel stressed that the officer was acting under explicit government orders to restore law and order, and any action taken was part of his official duty.
Agreeing with this line, Justice Pandey said the complaint was an attempt to drag a public servant into prolonged trials for actions taken in the discharge of duty and that it would have a chilling effect on governance.
“The continuation of proceedings without sanction would amount to abuse of process,” the court observed, quashing the Bettiah magistrate’s order of August 13, 2024.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
September 08, 2025, 15:26 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
