Allahabad High Court
ARVIND KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The court held that the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act were absent against the appellants, warranting quash of the summoning order.
Summary
The appellants Arvind Kumar and two others appealed against a summoning order under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, claiming no caste‑based abuse was alleged against them in the FIR or statements. The FIR and police statements attributed the alleged beating, caste‑based insults and threats to co‑accused Lalit and his sister Shakshi, and the incident occurred inside the informant's house. The State argued a prima facie case existed, but the High Court examined the facts and applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, which requires an intention to humiliate a Scheduled Caste/Tribe member. Finding that such intention and specific allegation against the appellants were absent, the Court held the offence under Section 3(2)(va) was not established. Consequently, the summoning order and related proceedings under that provision were quashed, while other criminal charges under the IPC were allowed to continue.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations against the appellants satisfy the elements of an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the trial court erred in issuing the summoning order against the appellants.
- Whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 117(2), 127(2), 323, 324(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(1), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- Section 3(2)(va)
- caste‑based atrocity
- summoning order
- abuse of process
- criminal appeal
- Hitesh Verma precedent
- intent to humiliate
- intra‑house incident
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4897 of 2026
Arvind Kumar And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhinav Kesarwani, Kaushal Mishra,
Sarvashva Thakur, Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Indrajeet Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire
record.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of The Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred with
a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18th April, 2026 as well as
entire proceedings of Special Sessions Case No. 580 of 2026 (State Vs.
Arvind & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2026 under Sections
323, 110, 352, 351 (2), 324 (2), 117 (2), 127 (2), 3 (5) B.N.S. and Section 3
(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, Police-Station- Teelamod, District-Trans Hindon,
Commissionerate Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge
(S.C./S.T. Act), Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that against the present
appellant, no offence under Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act is made out, as
the injured or the informant has not stated anything against them in the first
information report or in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
even they do not made any allegation of threatening being made against them
not. The entire allegations of beating up the injured and abusing by using
caste indicated words, made in the first information report as well as in the
statements of injured, informant and other witnesses recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. are against the co-accused Lalit. From the first information report
and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it transpires
that no allegation has been made against the appellants that they have
abused the informant/injured by using caste indicated words.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that moreover, the incident in
question has occurred inside the house i.e. within the wall. Therefore, as per
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of
CRLA No. 4897 of 2026
2
Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, if the injured was beating up and abused
by using caste indicated words inside a wall, no offence the provisions of
S.C./S.T. Act wold be attracted. Learned counsel for the appellants further
submits that so far as the allegation of threatening to injured or opposite party
no.2 is concerned, the said allegation has been made against Lalit and her
sister, namely, Shakshi only. In the first information report and in the
statement of injured recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no allegation of
beating up the injured or of abusing him by caste indicated words by the
present appellants. On the above premise, learned counsel for the appellants
urges that the impugned summoning order dated 18th April, 2026 against the
appellants under Sections 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act bet set aside.
5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant/opposite party
no.2 have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants. They submits that the incident as alleged by the informant has not
been disputed. The injury report of the injured has also not been disputed.
Therefore, prima facie case for the alleged offence is made out against the
appellants.
6. On the above premise, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the
learned A.G.A. submit that since the trial court while passing the summoning
order has not committed any gross error, therefore, the present criminal
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have considered facts and circumstances of the case, 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 investigation.
8. From perusal of the instant first information report as well as statements of
informant and injured, it is crystal clear that the alleged incident occurred
inside the house of the informant. In the first information report as well as in
the statements of injured and informant under under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the
entire allegations of beating upt the injured, abusing him by using caste
indicated words and threatening him to kill him, have been assigned to Lalit
and his sister Shakshi only. Neither the allegations of threatening to kill the
injured nor abusing him by using caste indicated words nor beating him have
been assigned to present appellants. Apart from the above as per version of
the first information report and the statements of witnesses, the incident
occurred inside the house of the informant.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2020) 10 SCC 710, has categorically held:
CRLA No. 4897 of 2026
3
"Offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant
is a member of a Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that such
person belongs to such caste."
10. Applying the aforesaid settled legal principles to the facts of the present
case, it is manifest that the essential ingredients of the offences under Section
3 (2) (va) of S.C./S.T. Act is wholly absent against the appellants.
11. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants under the
provisions of Section 3 (2) (va) of S.C./S.T. Act would, therefore, amount to
abuse of the process of law. The summoning order dated 18th April, 2026 as
well as entire proceedings against the appellants, so far as it relate to offence
under Section Sections 3 (2) (va) of S.C./S.T. is unsustainable in the eyes of
law and the same is, hereby, quashed. Remaining proceedings of Special
Sessions Case No. 580 of 2026 (State Vs. Arvind & Others), arising out of
Case Crime No. 18 of 2026 under Sections 323, 110, 352, 351 (2), 324 (2),
117 (2), 127 (2), 3 (5) B.N.S. will continue against appellants as the same is
affirmed by this Court.
12. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.
May 18, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…