SUNITA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1875 of 2026

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)          :     Jitendra Kumar Singh, Srijan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)         :     G.A.

Court No. - 51
                  HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

   1. Case called out in the revised call. Despite service of notice upon
     opposite party no. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf.

   2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants,
     and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The entire record has been
     perused.

   3. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
     Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has
     been preferred to quash the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the
     learned Special Court (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial
     No. 226 of 2021 (State vs. Sunita Singh and another). By the said
     order, the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants
     was partly rejected, and the appellants were not discharged from the
     offences under Sections 417, 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the
     SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No. 266 of 2019, Police Station
     Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

   4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no offence under
     Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act is made out. It is further submitted
     that a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 417, 420, 506 IPC
     and Sections 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act, and cognizance
     was taken accordingly. Thereafter, the appellants filed a discharge
     application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was partly allowed to the
     extent of Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act, but
     was rejected with respect to Sections 417, 420 IPC and Section
                                                       CRLA No. 1875 of 2026
                             2


  3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act.

5. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 417, 420 IPC and
  Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants.
  The informant had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of
  the appellants at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha. Subsequently,
  the value of the land had increased, the informant lodged the present
  FIR on false and fabricated grounds to evade execution of the sale
  deed. It is also argued that for invoking Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST
  Act, the alleged offence must be one specified in the Schedule to the
  Act. Since Sections 417 and 420 IPC are not included in the Schedule,
  the said provision is not attracted.

6. Learned A.G.A., while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the
  appellants, fairly conceded that Sections 417 and 420 IPC are not
  included in the Schedule of the SC/ST Act.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
  record, it is appropriate to reproduce Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST
  Act:

  "commits any offence specified in the Schedule against a person or
  property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste
  or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall
  be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian
  Penal Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine."

8. A perusal of Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act makes it clear that it is
  applicable only when the offence alleged is specified in the Schedule.
  In the present case, since the trial court has already discharged the
  appellants under Section 506 IPC, and Sections 417 and 420 IPC are
  not included in the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3(2)(5a) are not
  attracted.

9. As regards Sections 417 and 420 IPC, a perusal of the FIR reveals that
  an agreement to sell was allegedly executed at the rate of Rs.
  10,00,000/- per bigha to evade stamp duty, whereas the informant, in
  his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., claimed that the actual agreed
  rate was Rs. 74,00,000/- per bigha. It is further alleged that at the time
  of execution of the registered agreement, the appellants and their
                                                                                                CRLA No. 1875 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                           counsel initially prepared documents reflecting the higher rate but
                                           subsequently got another agreement executed mentioning the value of
                                           land of Rs. 10,000,00/- per bigha, without the knowledge of the
                                           informant.

                                        10. At the stage of framing of charge, it is settled law that if there is
                                           sufficient material on record giving rise to a strong suspicion against
                                           the accused, the charge can be framed. In Palwinder Singh vs.
                                           Balwinder Singh [(2009) ACC 65 (399) (SC)] has held that at the
                                           stage of taking cognizance or considering a protest petition, the court is
                                           only required to examine whether the material available on record
                                           gives rise to a strong suspicion against the accused. If such strong
                                           suspicion exists, the court is justified in proceeding further. It is not
                                           permissible at this stage to undertake a meticulous appreciation of
                                           evidence or to evaluate the defence version, as those are matters to be
                                           considered during trial..

                                        11. From a perusal of the FIR, the statement of the informant, and the
                                           earlier agreement is appended at page nos. 143 to 147 of the paper
                                           book, wherein the value of the land is shown as Rs. 74,00,000/- per
                                           bigha, this Court finds that there is sufficient material to proceed
                                           against the appellants under Sections 417 and 420 IPC.

                                        12. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The order dated
                                           02.12.2025 passed by the trial court is set aside to the extent it relates
                                           to Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act. However, the order is affirmed
                                           with respect to Sections 417 and 420 IPC.

                                    May 4, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                             (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad