PINTOOversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2733 of 2026

Pintoo
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :   Ashish Pal, Rajeev Kumar Pal
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 Rajeev Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the appellant, learned
A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

3. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of The Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to
quash the impugned cognizance order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), Meerut in
Sessions Case No. 2088 of 2025 (State Vs. Pintoo) as well as chargesheet
No. 172 of 2025 dated 24.08.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of
2025, under Sections- 352, 115(2), 131, 351(2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(5a),
3(1) r and 3(1)s of S.C. Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that incident took
place between the parties but neither any specific words relating to the caste
remarks words has been mentioned in the FIR nor the statement of the
informant and eye witness namely Satpal Singh and injured Ved Prakash
have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, no case is made
out against the appellant.

6. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant but could not disputed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the appellant.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and have carefully perused the entire record, including the first
information report, charge-sheet and the statements of the informant and eye
                                                                                              CRLA No. 2733 of 2026
                                                                     2

                                    witness recorded during investigation.

                                    8. From the perusal of the First Information Report and statements of the
                                    informant and eye witness namely Satpal recorded under Section 161
                                    Cr.P.C., it is evident that although allegations have been made regarding use
                                    of caste related words by the accused/appellant, no specific caste-related
                                    words have been mentioned either in the FIR or in the statements recorded
                                    during the course of investigation.

                                    9. In absence of any explicit or specific allegation disclosing the exact caste-
                                    based abusive words, the essential ingredients required to constitute an
                                    offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
                                    (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out.

                                    10. So far as the other offence is concerned, a perusal of the FIR and
                                    statement of the eye witness and the injuries received by the injured, prima
                                    fecie case is made out against the appellant under Sections- 352, 115(2),
                                    131, 351(2) B.N.S.

                                    10. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants under the
                                    provisions of the SC/ST Act would, therefore, amount to abuse of the
                                    process of law. The impugned cognizance order dated 16.12.2025 passed by
                                    the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), Meerut in
                                    Sessions Case No. 2088 of 2025 (State Vs. Pintoo), as far as relate to
                                    offences Section 3(2)(5a), 3(1) r and 3(1)s of S.C. Act, are liable to be
                                    quashed and are hereby quashed. Remaining proceedings related to offences
                                    under BNS will continue against appellant.

                                    11. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is party allowed.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                            (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




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