ABHAY KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10140 of 2022

Abhay Kumar Singh And Another
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)               :     Phool Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)              :     G.A., Shiv Shankar Kaithal

Court No. - 93
                      HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken
on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants to quash the cognizance/summoning Order dated
07.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Kanpur Dehat and Charge-Sheet No.311/2019 dated 24.10.2019 arising out
of Case Crime No.481 of 2018, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341,
323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mangalpur, District-
Ramabai Nagar.

4. Tersely, as per prosecution case, an FIR was lodged against four accused
persons namely Ajay Kumar Singh, Abhay Kumar Singh, Aditya Kumar
Singh and Ankit Kumar Singh. The accused persons had executed registered
sale deeds in favour of the informant concerning Arazi Nos. 76-Kha, 77-Ga
and 79-Ka, and possession of the said land was delivered to the informant. It
was alleged that between 07.09.2017 and 09.09.2017, the accused persons
removed/stole soil from the said land, thereby causing the informant an
alleged loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. It was further alleged that on 22.10.2018,
while the informant was returning after inspecting his field, the accused
persons intercepted him, abused him by using caste-related remarks and
assaulted him with lathi, danda and kicks.

5. Briefly,   the     grounds     of       the   appeal    are     that    the
                                                         CRLA No. 10140 of 2022
                                 2


impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2020 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat is
wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is
based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants, being
recorded tenure-holders, had executed registered sale deeds dated
06.05.1995 and 04.07.1997 in favour of opposite party no.2 and his wife
Munni Devi in respect of the disputed land, after receiving the sale
consideration and handing over possession. Their names were thereafter duly
mutated in the revenue records. It was contended that opposite party no.2
remained in possession without any grievance from 1995 till 2018, and the
present criminal proceedings were initiated after about 22 years on false and
concocted allegations arising out of a civil dispute. It was further submitted
that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating,
forgery, use of forged documents, theft, assault or criminal intimidation.
Civil Suit No.123 of 2019 is already pending between the parties for
adjudication of their rights over the property. The trial court, while taking
cognizance and passing the summoning order dated 07.11.2020, failed to
properly consider the material on record and acted without application of
judicial mind.


7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State
opposed the submission of appellant and submitted that the FIR and the
statements recorded during investigation disclose specific allegations against
the appellants, including illegal interference with the disputed property,
removal of soil, abuse, assault and threats. The fact that registered sale deeds
were executed in favour of opposite party no.2 and his wife does not, by
itself, extinguish the criminal allegations arising from the subsequent
conduct of the appellants. It was further submitted that the Investigating
Officer, after investigation, found sufficient material and submitted the
charge-sheet, on the basis of which the trial court has rightly taken
cognizance and summoned the appellants. The pendency of a civil suit does
not bar criminal proceedings where the allegations also disclose criminal
offences. The questions relating to the truthfulness of the allegations, the
defence of the appellants and the evidentiary value of the material are
matters for consideration during trial and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated at
the stage of cognizance.
                                                        CRLA No. 10140 of 2022
                                3



8. The First Information Report was registered against four accused persons,
namely, Ajay Kumar Singh, Abhay Kumar Singh, Aditya Kumar Singh and
Ankit Kumar Singh. The allegation is that the accused-appellants executed
registered sale deeds in favour of the informant in respect of Arazi Nos. 76-
Kha, 77-Ga and 79-Ka, pursuant to which possession was delivered to the
informant. It is further alleged that between 07.09.2017 and 09.09.2017, the
accused-appellants stolen soil from the aforesaid land, causing loss assessed
by the informant at Rs.3,00,000/-. However, the FIR does not disclose any
specific basis or material on the basis of which the alleged loss of
Rs.3,00,000/- was assessed. It is admitted that a civil suit concerning the
aforesaid property is pending between the parties. Learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 has also admitted that the aforesaid Arazis were
transferred in favour of the informant through registered sale deeds. The
informant has further alleged that when he objected to the digging/removal
of soil, the accused caused injuries to him on 22.10.2018. However, the
medical report was prepared on 23.10.2018 and records the duration of
injuries as two to three days. So far as the allegations under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned,
neither the FIR nor the case diary contains any reliable material to show that
the appellants used any casteist slur or insulted or humiliated the informant
on the ground of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
community. There is also no reliable material on record to establish the
allegation of forgery or any other independent criminal act. On an overall
consideration of the facts and circumstances, the allegations appear to have
arisen out of the existing civil dispute between the parties. The criminal
proceedings, therefore, appear to have been given a criminal colour to what
is essentially a civil/property dispute.

9. 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 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
                                                         CRLA No. 10140 of 2022
                                  4


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.

10. 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).

11. In Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal &
Others, AIR 2008 SC 251, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal
prosecution should not be permitted to be used as an instrument of
harassment, oppression or private vendetta. Where criminal proceedings are
initiated with an ulterior motive to exert pressure or to settle personal scores
arising out of a dispute predominantly civil in nature, the High Court is
justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings .

12. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 647, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be
allowed to continue where they are instituted merely to harass the accused or
to exert pressure in a civil dispute relating to property. The Court held that
giving a criminal colour to a dispute which is essentially civil in nature
amounts to an abuse of the process of law. At the same time, the Court
clarified that the existence of a civil dispute by itself is not a ground for
quashing criminal proceedings if the complaint prima facie discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence.
                                                                                             CRLA No. 10140 of 2022
                                                                    5


                                    13. 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 Section 3(2)5
                                    of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
                                    Act, 1989. The material collected during inquiry does not indicate that the
                                    alleged words or conduct were actuated by the caste or were intended to
                                    intentionally insult or humiliate any person 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 further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma and Shajan Skaria (supra).
                                    Likewise, the allegations are wholly insufficient to satisfy the essential
                                    ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C..


                                    14. In view of the settled legal position and the absence of foundational facts
                                    constituting the alleged offences, the impugned order passed by the learned
                                    Special Judge cannot be sustained in law. The appeal under Section 14-A of
                                    the SC/ST Act deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.

                                    15.    The     impugned the      cognizance/summoning        order     dated
                                    07.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act,
                                    Kanpur Dehat and Charge-Sheet No.311/2019 dated 24.10.2019 arising out
                                    of Case Crime No.481 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341,
                                    323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mangalpur, District-
                                    Ramabai Nagar is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings
                                    under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3(2)5
                                    of SC/ST Act against the appellants Abhay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar
                                    Singh stand quashed.

                                    16. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to court concerned through
                                    District & Sessions Judge within 48 hours.



                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                                 (Santosh Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad