AKHILESH KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2365 of 2022

Akhilesh Kumar And Another
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Nityanand Srivastava, Pramod Kumar
                                  Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.

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

     1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
     appellants, Sri Indra Dev, learned counsel for opposite party
     no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

     2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
     with a prayer to set aside the charge-sheet no.11 of 2022 dated
     2.3.2022 as well as the impugned summoning order dated
     30.3.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional
     Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Special Session Trial No.139 of
     2022 (State Vs. Adwait Narayan Singh & Ors.), arising out of
     Case Crime No.409 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
     506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
     Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
     1989, P.S.- Georgetown, District- Prayagraj.

     3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
     appellants have been falsely implicated merely on account of
     their relationship with the matrimonial family, without any
     specific or distinct allegation against them in the FIR,
     statement of the victim or the case diary. It is submitted that the
     dispute is essentially matrimonial in nature and arises out of the
     alleged extramarital relationship of accused Adwait Narayan
     Singh with co-accused Pratibha Singh. There is no allegation
     that any of the appellants used casteist slurs or insulted or
                                                   CRLA No. 2365 of 2022
                          2


humiliated the victim on account of her caste, and therefore no
offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. It is further
submitted that the appellants reside at a different place and
have no direct concern with the matrimonial dispute. Hence, in
the absence of any specific role or incriminating material
against them, continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of law.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned
AGA, has opposed the prayer of the appellants and submits
that the allegations made in the FIR, the statement of the victim
and the material collected during investigation disclose the
involvement of the accused appellant in the matrimonial
dispute and the acts of harassment and misbehaviour with the
victim. It is submitted that the allegations are required to be
examined during trial and, at this stage, the defence version
cannot be considered. Learned counsel further submits that the
victim admittedly belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and
the allegations, coupled with the material collected during
investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of offences
alleged against the appellants. Accordingly, it is prayed that no
interference is warranted at this stage and the appeal be
dismissed.

5. In the FIR, the accused appellants, namely, Adwait Narayan
Singh, Pratibha Singh and Amit Narayan, along with other
members of the matrimonial family, have been named.
However, except the accused Adwait Narayan Singh, no
specific or distinct allegation has been levelled against the
appellants. It is stated in the FIR that the victim is the legally
wedded wife of accused Adwait Narayan Singh. It has also
been stated by learned counsel for the appellants and confirmed
by learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 that
accused Adwait Narayan Singh and the victim have solemnized
their marriage in the year 2008 and two children were born out
of the wedlock. Admittedly, the victim belongs to the
Scheduled Caste category, whereas her husband, accused
                                                    CRLA No. 2365 of 2022
                          3


Adwait Narayan Singh, belongs to a non-Scheduled Caste. The
principal allegation against accused Adwait Narayan Singh is
that he was having an extramarital relationship with co-accused
Pratibha Singh, who is also named in the FIR. It has further
been alleged in the FIR, as well as in the case diary and the
statement of the victim, that all the members of the
matrimonial family, including the brother-in-law, mother-in-
law, father-in-law, younger brother-in-law and other family
members, used to support accused Adwait Narayan Singh.

6. However, there is no specific or distinct allegation either in
the FIR, in the statement of the victim, or in the case diary that
the appellants used any casteist slur with an intention to insult
or humiliate the victim on the ground of her belonging to the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category. The material on
record indicates that the dispute between accused Adwait
Narayan Singh and the victim is essentially matrimonial and
arises out of their strained relationship and the alleged
extramarital relationship of the appellant with co-accused
Pratibha Singh. It is also significant that the residential address
of appellant Adwait Narayan Singh is 4/8, EWS Colony, Shiv
Nagar, Allahpur, Police Station Georgetown, District
Prayagraj, whereas the appellants Akhilesh Kumar and his wife
Smt. Amita reside at Firojpur, Post Vishnupur, Khutahan,
District Jaunpur. Thus, their residential addresses are distinct
and there is no material indicating any direct connection of the
appellants with the alleged matrimonial dispute.

7. 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
                                                  CRLA No. 2365 of 2022
                          4


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.

8. 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 Supreme 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).

9. Having considered the rival submissions, the material
brought on record, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court finds that
the allegations contained in the First Information Report and
the material collected during investigation do not prima facie
disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. In
the absence of any specific allegation of intentional caste-based
insult or humiliation attracting the provisions of the SC/ST
Act, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would
                                                                                         CRLA No. 2365 of 2022
                                                                 5


                                        amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the
                                        impugned charge-sheet and the summoning order cannot be
                                        sustained in the eyes of law.

                                        10. Consequently, the charge-sheet no.11 of 2022 dated
                                        2.3.2022 and the impugned order dated 30.3.2022 passed
                                        by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge,
                                        Allahabad in Special Session Trial No.139 of 2022 (State
                                        Vs. Adwait Narayan Singh & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime
                                        No.409 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
                                        Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
                                        Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.-
                                        Georgetown, District- Prayagraj, are hereby set aside in respect
                                        of the present appellants only.

                                        11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

                                        12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the
                                        instant order to the court concerned through District and
                                        Sessions Judge concerned by e-mail/FAX within 48 hours.



                                                                                            (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    RA




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad