HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9405 of 2025 Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in court by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Raghuraj Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 07.07.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya in Special Session Trial No.903 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.178 of 2025 under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Ajitmal, District- Auraiya.
4. The First Information Report has been registered against four accused persons, namely, Alka Singh, Nitin Yadav, Sumer Singh and Raja Babu. It has been alleged therein that the son of the informant, namely, Rahul Kumar, who is stated to be the victim, executed a registered sale deed in favour of Alka Singh. Alka Singh and Nitin Yadav are husband and wife. The disputed land, which is one-fourth part in Khasra No. 272, measuring 0.0678 hectare, is stated to have been transferred in favour of Alka Singh through the aforesaid registered sale deed without any consideration. The registered sale deed is available on record, which indicates that Sumer Singh and Raja Babu are the attesting witnesses thereto, while Rahul Versus
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Agrahari, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Raghuraj Singh, G.A.
Sumer Singh Pal And Another
.....Appellant(s)
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
1
Kumar is the executant of the sale deed in favour of Alka Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the dispute essentially arises out of a registered sale deed dated 21.06.2024 concerning Khasra No. 272, measuring 0.0678 hectare, executed by Rahul in favour of appellant no.1. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about ten months and does not disclose any specific date or time of the alleged incident of abuse or threat. The statements of the informant and witnesses also do not specify the date and time of the alleged occurrence. The sale deed has been acted upon in mutation and partition proceedings, while civil proceedings regarding the property are already pending. It is further submitted that the informant and Rahul had entered into a compromise with appellant no.1, pursuant to which a portion of the land was transferred to the prosecution witness Vandana. The ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out from the FIR, statements or material collected during investigation. Despite the absence of credible material, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance and summoned the appellants without recording proper satisfaction. The appellants have no criminal history and, therefore, the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2025 and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed.
6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that the FIR specifically discloses allegations against the appellants and other co-accused, and during investigation the statements of the informant, Rahul and witness Vandana have supported the prosecution version. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, a charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance has been taken by the competent court. The disputed property and pendency of civil proceedings do not, by themselves, wipe out the alleged criminality or justify quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the mutation proceedings have already been concluded in respect of a portion of the land bearing Khasra No. 272 in respect of execution of sale deed by Alka Singh in favour of Rahul Kumar after execution of sale deed dated 21.06.2024. The defence pleas regarding the validity of the sale deed, compromise, mutation and partition are matters requiring consideration on the basis of evidence and CRLA No. 9405 of 2025
2
cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. Hence, no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise, pursuant to which Alka Singh agreed to execute a part of the disputed land in favour of the informant. Admittedly, a civil dispute between the parties is also pending before the competent civil court. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by Sumer Singh and Nitin Yadav. Alka Singh and Raja Babu are stated to belong to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category, and consequently, no charge-sheet under the provisions of the SC/ST Act has been submitted against them. Cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC. It has further been stated that in an application under Section 528 BNSS being Application U/S 528 BNSS No.37831 of 2025 filed by Alka Sing and another, the proceedings have been stayed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. From a perusal of the First Information Report, as well as the statements of the informant and Rahul Kumar, who himself executed the sale deed in favour of Alka Singh without consideration, it appears that the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of the execution of the sale deed without consideration, allegedly on the false promise that Alka Singh would help in solemnizing the marriage of Rahul Kumar. However, from a careful perusal of the First Information Report and the statements of the victim and the informant, there is no material on record to indicate that the accused- appellants committed any offence under the SC/ST Act with an intention to insult or humiliate the victim on the ground of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category. In the circumstances, it appears that the First Information Report has essentially arisen out of a civil dispute between the parties concerning the execution and validity of the sale deed in respect of Khasra No. 272. The prosecution has not pointed out any evidence of 'public view' and intentional insult/humiliation solely on the ground that victim belongs to SC/ST category. Therefore, prima facie, no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants.
8. In the case of Swaran Singh vs State (2008) 8 SCC 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court drew a clear distinction between the expressions "public place" and "any place within public view." A private place may still be a CRLA No. 9405 of 2025
3
place within public view if the incident is visible to members of the public. Conversely, merely because an incident occurs in a public building does not automatically satisfy the requirement if it is not within public view. The Supreme Court held that words such as "Chamar", though originally denoting a caste, may amount to an offence if used as a casteist abuse with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes. The Court emphasized that words should be understood in their popular and social meaning, not merely their etymological meaning. For attracting Section 3(1)(x) (now Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)), there must be intentional insult or intimidation; and intent to humiliate the victim because he or she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere abuse or quarrel, without the requisite intention contemplated by the Act, is insufficient. The Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should continue only where the allegations disclose a prima facie offence against the particular accused. Proceedings may be quashed where the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients against an accused.
9. In Gorige Pentaiah vs state of AP & Ors 2009 Cri.L.J. 350, Honble Apex court held "when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law." In the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Suprme Court held that 'a dispute that arose inside the private house of a complainant over the possession of the land without the presence of independent public witnesses, does not satisfy the statutory threshold of Section 3(1)(r).
10. In the case of Shajan Skraria vs. State of Kerala and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2249, the Hon'ble Apex Court by quoting the cases of Hitesh Verma (Supra) has held as under:
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on CRLA No. 9405 of 2025
4
account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste." In Khuman Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh ., (2020) 18 SCC 763
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the dictum as laid aforesaid is that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled CRLA No. 9405 of 2025
5
Tribe. I say so because the object behind the enactment of the Act, 1989 was to provide stringent provisions for punishment of offences which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status."
11. Accordingly, having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon a careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to disclose even a prima facie case attracting the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The material collected during inquiry does not indicate that the alleged words or conduct were actuated by the caste of the informant or were intended to intentionally insult or humiliate the informant on the ground that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Equally absent is any material to establish that the alleged occurrence took place in a place within "public view", which is a sine qua non for constituting the offence under the aforesaid provisions, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma & Shajan Skaria (supra).
12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the material collected during investigation, and the continuance of proceedings for the said offences would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act succeeds in part.
13. Consequently, the summoning order dated 07.07.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya in Special Session Trial No.903 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.178 of 2025 under Sections 420, 504 and 506 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Ajitmal, District- Auraiya, is modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. CRLA No. 9405 of 2025
6
14. However, sufficient material is available on record to proceed against the appellants under the provisions of IPC. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC shall continue and be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law. The trial court shall proceed uninfluenced by any observation made herein on the merits of the case.
15. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.
16. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge, Auraiya within a week.
August 25, 2026
Ankit. CRLA No. 9405 of 2025
7
(Santosh Rai,J.)
7