VIKRAM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2973 of 2026

Vikram And 2 Others
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Himanshu Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A., Pintu Kumar Bhartiya, Pradhumn
                                 Kumar Pandey

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

   1. Heard Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
     Pradhumn Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2,
     learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire record.

   2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
     Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has
     been preferred against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the
     learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura in S.S.T. No. 868 of 2025
     (State vs. Vikram and Others), under Sections 452 and 506 I.P.C. and
     Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the discharge application
     filed by the appellants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

   3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire
     prosecution case is false, concocted and has been maliciously instituted
     on account of previous enmity and land dispute between the parties. It
     is further submitted that prior to institution of the present complaint,
     co-accused Sachin had lodged an F.I.R. dated 30.05.2024 against the
     husband and son of opposite party no.2, being Case Crime No.131 of
     2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station
     Mant, District Mathura, in which charge-sheet has also been submitted
     after investigation. According to learned counsel, the present
     proceedings have been initiated only as a counter-blast to the aforesaid
     criminal case with an ulterior motive to harass and pressurize the
     appellants.

   4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that even if the
     entire prosecution story is accepted on its face value, no offence under
     Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. It
     is argued that the alleged incident is stated to have taken place inside
     the residential house of the complainant at about 10:30 PM and,
     therefore, the essential ingredient of insult or intimidation “within
     public view” is completely absent. It is also contended that neither the
     complaint nor the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202
                                                       CRLA No. 2973 of 2026
                             2


   Cr.P.C. disclose the exact caste-related abusive words allegedly used
   or that the alleged insult was intentionally made only on account of the
   caste of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that there is
   no averment that the appellants do not belong to Scheduled Caste or
   Scheduled Tribe community and, therefore, the mandatory ingredients
   of the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking.

 5. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
    Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand( 2020) 10 SCC 710 to
   contend that mere reference to caste is insufficient to attract the
   provisions of the SC/ST Act unless there is specific intention to
   humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place
   within public view.

 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as
   learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and submitted that both sides have
   sustained injuries and the present case is a cross-case. It is further
   submitted that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the
   statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. clearly
   disclose commission of cognizable offences and the learned court
   below has rightly rejected the discharge application.

 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
   parties and have carefully perused the entire record including the
   complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
   and the impugned order.

 8. From the material available on record, it appears that the alleged
   incident is stated to have occurred inside the residential house of the
   complainant during night hours. Prima facie, the essential ingredient of
   the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, namely that the
   alleged insult or intimidation must have taken place “within public
   view”, does not appear to be satisfied. Further, neither the complaint
   nor the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
   disclose any specific material to indicate that the alleged caste-related
   remarks were intentionally made only on account of the caste of the
   complainant.

 9. The learned trial court, while rejecting the discharge application, has
   failed to properly consider the essential ingredients required for
   constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The
   law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State
   of Uttarakhand (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present
   case.

10. However, so far as the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 506
   I.P.C. are concerned, this Court is of the view that at the stage of
   discharge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required and the
   allegations made in the complaint as well as statements recorded under
   Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclose sufficient grounds for
                                                                                                   CRLA No. 2973 of 2026
                                                                         3


                                             proceeding against the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

                                          11. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed.

                                          12. The impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Special
                                             Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura in S.S.T. No. 868 of 2025 (State vs.
                                             Vikram and Others) is hereby set aside to the extent it relates to the
                                             offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and the appellants are
                                             discharged from the said offence.

                                          13. However, the proceedings against the appellants for the offences
                                             punishable under Sections 452 and 506 I.P.C. shall continue in
                                             accordance with law.

                                          14. The trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously with the trial of the
                                             remaining offences strictly in accordance with law without being
                                             influenced by any observation made hereinabove.



                                                                                                (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    pks




Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad