RAJU AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1215 of 2026

Raju And 5 Others
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)             :   Raj Kiran Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :   G.A., Surendra Mohan Mishra

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 07.08.2025, passed by the
learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Complaint
No. 99 of 2024, (Teggan Vs. Raju and Others), under Sections 147, 323,
504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station
Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar.

3. Tersely, as per the prosecution case, the complainant/opposite party no.2
alleges that on 22.02.2024 at about 8:00 p.m., while his minor daughters
were returning after attending nature's call, accused appellant no.1 Raju
Yadav allegedly attempted to commit rape upon one of them and
misbehaved with the other. On their raising alarm, the accused appellant
no.1 Raju, along with other accused appellants Ramu, Puttilal, Manoj,
Santosh, Raksha Ram and Barkha, allegedly assaulted the complainant and
his family members with sticks, rods and bricks, causing injuries to them. It
is further alleged that the accused appellants abused the complainant in
caste-related terms and entered his house and assaulted the family members.

4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order
dated 07.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
Siddharth Nagar 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 submitted that the allegations in the
complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the essential
ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act. Although caste-related
                                                         CRLA No. 1215 of 2026
                                2

abuse was alleged, neither the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. nor
the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. specified the actual
casteist words allegedly used. There was no allegation that the accused used
such words with the intention to humiliate or insult the complainant on
account of his belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, which is a
necessary ingredient of the relevant offence under the SC/ST Act. The
existence of a cross-case lodged by accused Rajkumar against the
complainant Teggan and others showed that the incident was a mutual
dispute rather than an offence motivated by caste.

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 submitted that the complaint specifically alleged that Raju
misbehaved with and outraged the modesty of the complainant's daughter,
and that when the complainant objected, the family members of Raju
assaulted the complainant's wife and daughters. The complainant
consistently reiterated these allegations in his statement under Section 200
Cr.P.C. It was also alleged that the accused persons used caste-related
derogatory words against the complainant, thereby attracting the provisions
of the SC/ST Act. At the stage of taking cognizance/framing a prima facie
case, the court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence
or determine whether the allegations will ultimately result in conviction.
The allegations regarding caste-based abuse, assault and the surrounding
circumstances were sufficient, according to the complainant, to warrant
continuation of the proceedings against the accused appellants.

7. In the complaint, seven accused persons, namely Raju, Ramu, Puttilal,
Manoj, Santosh, Raksha Ram and Barkha were named. The allegation was
that accused appellant no.1 Raju had misbehaved with and outraged the
modesty of the complainant's daughter. When the complainant objected to
such conduct, the family members of Raju allegedly assaulted the
complainant's wife and daughters and used Caste related derogatory words
against him. In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant
reiterated the allegation against Raju and alleged that family members of
Raju caused injuries to his family members and used casteist remarks.
However, neither the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has
been treated as a complaint, nor the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
disclosed any specific casteist slur or allegation that such words were used
with the intention to humiliate or insult the complainant on account of his
belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. It was also admitted that
a cross-case had been registered by accused Rajkumar against the
complainant Teggan and others and that both sides had sustained injuries.
Thus, the existence of a cross-case was an admitted fact. So far as the
                                                          CRLA No. 1215 of 2026
                                 3

offences under the IPC are concerned, a prima facie case was made out
against the accused-appellants. However, the necessary ingredients for the
offence under the SC/ST Act were not prima facie established.

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. 1215 of 2026
                           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. 1215 of 2026
                                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)(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 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 further reaffirmed in Hitesh
Verma and Shajan Skaria (supra).

12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offences under
Sections 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the
material collected during investigation/inquiry, 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 and is allowed partly.

13. The impugned summoning order dated 07.08.2025, passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Complaint No. 99
of 2024, (Teggan Vs. Raju and Others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506,
354 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Trilokpur,
District Siddharth Nagar is modified to the extent that the appellants stand
discharged of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST
Act.


14. Nevertheless, since a prima facie case is made out for the offences
                                                                                            CRLA No. 1215 of 2026
                                                                    6


                                    punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC, the prosecution in
                                    respect thereof 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. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
                                    concerned within 48 hours.


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




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