ABHAY RAJ AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2074 of 2026

Abhay Raj And 3 Others
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Dharmendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.,  Rakesh    Chandra         Pathak,
                                 Ramanuj Tiwari

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

1. None appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2.

2. Heard Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants
and learned AGA for the State.

3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a
prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 26.08.2024 and set aside the
summoning order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Jaunpur in SST No.183 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abhay Raj and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.309 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352 and
351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Mungra Badshahpur, District-
Jaunpur.

4. In the First Information Report lodged by the complainant, Vijay
Kumar, it has been alleged that the accused-appellants caused injuries to
the injured person with hard and blunt objects, namely lathi and danda,
and further used the expression “Chamar" and "Siyar”.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned criminal
proceedings arise out of a purely civil dispute relating to possession and
demarcation of adjoining parcels of land. There is an unexplained delay of
three days in lodging the FIR, and the alleged victim was medically
examined only on 19.08.2024, wherein only a simple injury on the left
forearm was found, which could also have been caused by a fall. It is
                                                        CRLA No. 2074 of 2026
                               2


further submitted that the parties are already litigating before the
civil/revenue authorities regarding the disputed land and a status quo
order has also been passed. The applicants are in possession of their
respective land, as reflected from the site plan and revenue proceedings. It
is therefore argued that the criminal case has been initiated to exert
pressure in the pending civil dispute and that no offence under the alleged
provisions of the B.N.S. or the SC/ST Act is made out. Accordingly, the
appellants pray that the entire criminal proceedings, including the charge-
sheet, cognizance/summoning order and consequential proceedings, be
quashed.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the FIR discloses specific
allegations against the accused-appellants regarding the occurrence in
which the victim and other persons were allegedly assaulted and caste-
based abusive words were used. The investigating officer, after
investigation, recorded the statements of the informant, victim and other
prosecution witnesses under Section 180 B.N.S.S., collected the medical
evidence and prepared the site plan, and thereafter submitted charge-sheet
against the appellants under the relevant provisions of the B.N.S. and the
SC/ST Act. The learned Special Judge has also taken cognizance on
13.05.2025. It is submitted that the existence of a civil dispute between
the parties does not, by itself, efface the criminal allegations or bar
criminal proceedings where the complaint discloses cognizable offences.
The disputed questions regarding possession, the correctness of the rival
claims and the evidentiary value of the prosecution material are matters to
be considered by the trial court and do not warrant quashing of the
proceedings at this stage.

7. Admittedly, Civil Suit No. 1056 of 2004 is pending between the
parties, in which a stay order has been passed in favour of the appellant
Jai Karan. The said civil suit was instituted by Jai Karan against Vijay
Kumar and ten other persons. It is also admitted that Vijay Kumar is the
complainant in the present case and Jai Karan is the father of appellant
nos. 1 and 2. So far as the allegation of causing injuries is concerned,
medical evidence is available on record which corroborates the statement
of the injured person. However, from the material available on record, it
appears that the incident occurred in the backdrop of the existing land
                                                       CRLA No. 2074 of 2026
                               3


dispute between the parties. There is no reliable material in the FIR or in
the statements of the complainant and the victim to indicate that the
alleged casteist expression was used with the intention to insult or
humiliate the complainant or the victim on the ground of their belonging
to the SC/ST category. Thus, the essential ingredient of intentional insult
or humiliation on the ground of caste is not prima facie established from
the material placed on record.

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
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
                                                                 CRLA No. 2074 of 2026
                                    4


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 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
                                                               CRLA No. 2074 of 2026
                                   5


     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 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. 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.

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)(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
                                                      CRLA No. 2074 of 2026
                              6


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).

14. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under
Section 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.

15. Consequently, the chargesheet dated 26.08.2024 and the summoning
order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in
SST No.183 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abhay Raj and others) arising out
of Case Crime No.309 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2)
BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Mungra Badshahpur, District-
Jaunpur, is modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of
the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

16. However, sufficient material is available on record to proceed against
the appellants under the provisions of BNS. Accordingly, the proceedings
against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 115(2), 352 and
351(2) BNS 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.

17. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.

18. The appellants are directed to appear before the court concerned and
move bail application, within two weeks from today. It is made clear that
no application seeking extension of the aforesaid period shall be
entertained by this court.
                                                                                             CRLA No. 2074 of 2026
                                                                    7


                                    19. In case, the appellants move bail application before the court
                                    concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court
                                    expeditiously and preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid
                                    down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court regarding surrender and
                                    bail.

                                    20. In case, the appellants fail to appear before the court concerned within
                                    the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate
                                    coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence
                                    of the appellants.

                                    21. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge,
                                    Jaunpur within four days.



                                                                                                (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Ankit.




Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad