ANIL KUMAR AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11676 of 2024

Anil Kumar And 4 Others
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Prince Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A., Shobha Srivastava, Vijay Kumar
                                 Dubey

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

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

2. This criminal appeal filed under Section 14 (A)(1) of S.C. & S.T Act to
quash the impugned summoning order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Complaint Case
No. 91 of 2023, Ramkesh Vs. Anil & Ors., whereby the appellants have been
summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Sections
3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Ghanghata, District Sant
Kabir Nagar.

3. Tersely, as per prosecution case, the complainant alleged that on
01.11.2014 at about 11.00 A.M., the accused persons forcibly passed a
combine machine through his wheat field, causing a loss of about
Rs.10,000/-, and, when his wife objected, threatened her with dire
consequences. It was further alleged that on 04.11.2014 at about 7.00 A.M.,
after the departure of the police outpost in-charge, the accused appellants
allegedly trespassed into the complainant's house, assaulted his wife and
children with lathis and fists, abused them using caste-related insulting
words and threatened them with death. .

4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned dated 21.07.2023
passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur 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.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned summoning
order dated 11.10.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material
available on record. It is argued that although the complainant alleged
                                                         CRLA No. 11676 of 2024
                                2

assault and beating but no medical evidence or medical report was produced
in support of the allegations. The learned Magistrate has summoned the
appellant without there being sufficient material against them and without
properly considering the material accompanying the complaint and the
complainant's statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted
that the learned Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind and passed the
impugned order mechanically. The appellant has no criminal antecedents,
has never been convicted and is not wanted in any other criminal case.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the
State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants and submit that the complaint and the statements recorded during
the enquiry disclose prima facie material against the appellant, sufficient for
issuance of summons. At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only
required to examine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the
accused, and medical evidence is not indispensable where the allegations are
otherwise supported by the complainant and witnesses. It is argued that the
learned Magistrate has duly considered the material on record and rightly
summoned the appellant for the offences alleged. The absence of criminal
antecedents does not absolve the appellant from liability where a prima facie
case is made out. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. The complaint was filed against six accused persons namely Anil, Sadhu,
Ankur, Rajdev, Lalman and Ram Lakhan alleging two separate incidents
dated 01.11.2014 and 04.11.2014. In respect of the first incident, it was
alleged that the accused persons forcibly passed away a combine machine
through his wheat, causing a loss of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
However, neither the complaint nor the statements recorded under Sections
200 and 202 CrPC disclose the ownership of the combine machine or the
authority of the accused to take it away, nor is there any reliable material
substantiating the alleged loss. Regarding the second incident, it was alleged
that the accused persons assaulted the complainant and his wife inside their
house. In this case the second incident is said to be occurred on 04.11.2014
at about 7.00 A.M. whereas in the statement of the complainant recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. time of second incident is said to be occurred on
04.11.2014 at about 6.00 A.M.. So far time is concerned, there is minor
contradictions in the complaint or in the statement of complainant regarding
the time of the incident. In this case no medical/injury report has been placed
on record despite the allegation of assault. Both incidents allegedly occurred
on 01.11.2014 and 04.11.2014, whereas the complaint was instituted only on
02.03.2015, without any plausible explanation for the delay. Further, there is
no specific or reliable allegation that the accused used any casteist slur with
intent to insult or humiliate the complainant on the ground of his belonging
                                                         CRLA No. 11676 of 2024
                                 3

to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. Considering the
absence of reliable supporting material, unexplained delay, and lack of
specific allegations attracting the SC/ST Act, the complaint appeared to have
been instituted with an ulterior motive.

8. In the case of Swaran singh Vs State (2008)8SCC 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 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 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
                                                    CRLA No. 11676 of 2024
                           4


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
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 M.P., (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
                                                          CRLA No. 11676 of 2024
                                5


     intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is
     subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled 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)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) 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 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC.


12. 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.

13. The impugned summoning order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 91 of
2023, Ramkesh Vs. Anil & Ors., whereby the appellants have been
summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Sections
3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Ghanghata, District Sant
Kabir     Nagar are    set    aside.   Consequently,    the    proceedings
under Sections Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Sections
3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants Anil, Sadhu,
Ankur, Rajdev Ram Lakhan stand quashed.

14. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to court concerned through
                                                                                 CRLA No. 11676 of 2024
                                                                   6


                                    District & Sessions Judge within 48 hours.



                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                     (Santosh Rai,J.)




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