AMAY PANDEY AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3112 of 2026

Amay Pandey And 3 Others
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Ashwini Kumar,         Ganesh     Shanker
                                  Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.

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

   1. Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the
      appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire
      record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of
      opposite party no. 2.

   2. 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 summoning order dated 19.07.2025 as
      well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 445 of
      2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2019, under Sections 147,
      323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) of the SC/ST Act.

   3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the entire
      prosecution case is inherently contradictory and has been falsely
      fabricated due to ulterior motives. It is submitted that the F.I.R. was
      initially lodged against unknown persons with a vague allegation of
      assault arising out of a dispute during a marriage ceremony, without
      any reference to caste-based abuse. However, in the subsequent
      statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant materially
      improved his version by introducing a new story alleging caste-
      related inquiry and assault, and further claiming identification of the
      appellants through CCTV footage. This material contradiction
      between the F.I.R. and later statements clearly demolishes the
      credibility of the prosecution case. It is further argued that no test
                                                     CRLA No. 3112 of 2026
                            2


  identification parade was conducted, despite the appellants being
  strangers residing at a distance of more than 30 kilometers, thereby
  rendering their alleged identification doubtful and legally unreliable.
  The implication of the appellants is thus alleged to be at the instance
  of the marriage hall owner, owing to personal and ulterior
  considerations.

4. It is further contended that the medical evidence does not support the
   prosecution version, as the injuries sustained by the informant are
   simple in nature, with two injuries being mere complaints of pain
   and the CT scan report showing no abnormality. This indicates that
   the alleged incident has been exaggerated and falsely projected.
   Moreover, the essential ingredients to attract the provisions of the
   SC/ST Act are not satisfied, as there is no evidence to show that the
   alleged offence was committed on the ground of the informant
   belonging to a Scheduled Caste. In support of this submission,
   reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
  Supreme Court in Dasrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
  Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein
  it has been held that the offence must be committed specifically on
  the basis of caste to attract Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Hence, the
  continuation of proceedings against the appellants is liable to be set
  aside.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted
   that, from a perusal of the charge-sheet and summoning order, it
   cannot be said that no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out
   against the appellants.

6. 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 other witnesses recorded during the investigation.

7. From the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
   appellants and upon perusal of the record, it prima facie appears that
   there are material contradictions and improvements in the
                                                        CRLA No. 3112 of 2026
                              3


   prosecution case. The First Information Report does not contain any
   allegation of caste-based abusive language, nor does it assign any
   specific role to the appellants. The medical evidence indicates only
   simple injuries. These aspects, coupled with the admitted
   background of personal dispute between the parties, create serious
   doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, particularly insofar
   as the offences under the SC/ST Act are concerned.

 8. The materials collected during investigation do not disclose that the
    alleged acts were committed on account of the caste of the informant
    or with the intention to humiliate or intimidate him solely because he
    belongs to a Scheduled Caste.

 9. It is well settled that for attracting the provisions of Section 3(1)(Da)
    of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must prima facie establish that the
    accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim with the
    intent to humiliate him on the ground that such person belongs to a
   Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and that such act was
   committed in a place within public view.

10. In the present case, there is not even a whisper in the First
    Information Report or in the statements recorded during
    investigation to show that the appellants acted with the requisite
    mens rea to humiliate the informant on the basis of his caste. Mere
    use of abusive language or involvement in a scuffle, without the
    foundational requirement of caste-based intent, does not attract the
    rigours of the SC/ST Act.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of
    Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, has categorically held that an
    offence under the Act is not established merely on the ground that
    the informant is a member of a Scheduled Caste, unless there is an
    intention to humiliate such person on account of his caste.

12. Applying the aforesaid settled legal principles to the facts of the
    present case, it is manifest that the essential ingredients of the
    offences under the SC/ST Act are wholly absent. A Co-ordinate
    Bench of this Court in Pappu Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2002 Cri. L.J.
                                                                                             CRLA No. 3112 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                           1251 has held that simply addressing a person by his caste without
                                           any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute offence
                                           under the SC/ST Act.

                                        13. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants
                                            under the provisions of the SC/ST Act would, therefore, amount to
                                            an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the
                                            cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2025, insofar as it relates
                                            to offences under Section 3(1)(Da) of the SC/ST Act, is liable to be
                                            quashed and is hereby quashed. However, the proceedings in respect
                                            of offences under Sections 147, 323, and 504 I.P.C. shall continue in
                                            accordance with law.

                                        14. In view of the aforesaid, the present criminal appeal is partly
                                            allowed.



                                                                                          (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    April 28, 2026
                                    pks




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