SMT NIRMALA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3166 of 2026

Smt Nirmala Singh And Another
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Mamta Sen, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Aditya Mishra, Awaneesha Kumar,
                                 G.A., Rajesh Kumar

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for O.P. No.2
and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants to set aside
the summoning order dated 01.06.2022 passed by learned Special Judge
(S.C./S.T. Act), Allahabad in Special Session Trial No.274 of 2022 (State
of U.P. vs. Smt. Nirmala Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime
No.263 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, P.S.- Industrial Area, District- Prayagraj.
He further prays to stay the proceedings in the present case.

3. In the First Information Report, the accused-appellants, namely
Nirmala Singh and Rajkumar Singh, are named. The allegation against the
appellants is that appellant no.1, Nirmala Singh, was working as the
Warden of Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya, while the
informant/victim, Phool Chand, was serving as a Chowkidar in the
aforesaid school. It is alleged that the victim, who generally worked as a
labourer and occasionally supplied milk to the appellant Nirmala Singh,
had some confrontation with the appellants, whereafter the accused-
appellants, who are husband and wife, allegedly caused injuries to him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the FIR dated
29.12.2021, regarding the alleged incident of 26.12.2021, is a false and
belated counterblast. Though caste-based abuse and assault are alleged,
the medical report shows no injury, and the statements of witnesses
                                                        CRLA No. 3166 of 2026
                               2


Ritanjali and Seema do not support the allegation of caste-related words.
The informant had earlier faced complaints regarding dereliction of duty,
including a complaint by appellant No.1, providing motive for false
implication. The charge-sheet was submitted on 04.02.2022 and the
appellants were summoned on 01.06.2022 without proper application of
judicial mind. The appellants had no knowledge of the proceedings or
service of summons and learnt of the case only upon issuance of warrants.
Hence, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the
proceedings set aside.

5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submit that
the FIR specifically names both appellants and contains clear allegations
of assault and caste-based abuse. The investigating officer, after
investigation, found sufficient material and submitted the charge-sheet
dated 04.02.2022. The alleged misconduct of the informant and previous
complaints are matters of defence and cannot be adjudicated at the
summoning stage. The absence of injury in the medical report does not by
itself negate the prosecution case. Since sufficient material existed against
the appellants, the summoning order calls for no interference, and the
appeal, including the delay, deserves dismissal.

6. Admittedly, the injury report of the injured/victim Phool Chand, which
was prepared after a delay of three days on 29.12.2021, does not disclose
any specific or visible injury and merely records a complaint of pain. It
has further been stated that victim Phool Chand was appointed in the
aforesaid school as a Class-IV employee/Gatekeeper and that, owing to
alleged negligence in the discharge of her duties, the matter was brought
to the notice of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Prayagraj, and a notice was
consequently issued to her by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Allahabad. Learned counsel for the opposite party fairly admits that
subsequent to the incident, proceedings were also initiated against the
informant/victim Phool Chand, pursuant to which he was removed from
service and was thereafter engaged in the school as a Chowkidar on fixed
wages. Significantly, neither the First Information Report nor the
statement of the victim contains any specific or distinct allegation that the
accused-appellants used any casteist slur with the intention of insulting or
humiliating the victim on the ground of his belonging to the Scheduled
                                                       CRLA No. 3166 of 2026
                               3


Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. Further, the alleged incident is stated
to have taken place inside the house of appellant Nirmala Singh, which
admittedly does not constitute a place within public view. Thus, the
essential ingredients necessary to attract the offence under the SC/ST Act
are not prima facie disclosed from the allegations contained in the FIR
and the statement of the victim.

7. 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.

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 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
Section 3(1)(r).
                                                                                           CRLA No. 3166 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    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) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The
                                    dispute between the parties is primarily related to supply of milk and the
                                    injury report of the injured/victim Phool Chand, which was prepared after
                                    a delay of three days on 29.12.2021, does not disclose any specific or
                                    visible injury and merely records a complaint of pain. 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 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 summoning order dated 01.06.2022 passed by
                                    learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Allahabad in Special Session Trial
                                    No.274 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Smt. Nirmala Singh and another)
                                    arising out of Case Crime No.263 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504 and
                                    506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, P.S.-
                                    Industrial Area, District- Prayagraj, is hereby set aside.

                                    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, Prayagraj by e-
                                    mail/FAX within three days.


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




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