ARUN MISHRA AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5851 of 2025

Arun Mishra And 5 Others
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)             :   Ved Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :   Deepak Kumar Tripathi, G.A.

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

   1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri
     N.K. Choudhary, Advocate holding brief of Sri Deepak Kumar
     Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2; learned AGA for the
     State, and perused the record.

   2. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the
     Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
     1989, the appellants have assailed the legality and validity of the
     summoning order dated 12.12.2024, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST
     Act, Varanasi, while entertaining Case No. 687 of 2024 (State Vs.
     Arun Mishra & Ors.), has summoned the appellants to face trial under
     Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3)(2), 352 and 117(2) of the B.N.S. and
     Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act, Police
     Station Kotwali-Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

   3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations made
     against the appellants are based on false and fabricated grounds. The
     allegation regarding offences under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of
     the SC/ST Act is against one Priyanka Paswan, but she has not lodged
     any FIR or complaint against the present appellants. The FIR was
     actually lodged by Sulekha Sharma in the garb of Priyanka Paswan to
     take benefit of Special Act.

   4. It is further submitted that there is a dispute between the Oswal
     Company and the appellants regarding possession of the premises and,
     subsequently, the appellants obtained a decree in their favour. When
                                                      CRLA No. 5851 of 2025
                             2


  they started evicting opposite party no. 2 pursuant to the decree
  obtained from the competent court, opposite party no. 2 lodged the
  present FIR on false and fabricated grounds. It is next submitted that
  the offences under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act
  are not made out, though it is fairly conceded that injuries were
  sustained by opposite party no. 2.

5. It is next submitted that the entire incident is alleged to have taken
  place in the premises when, after vacation of the house by one
  Akhilesh Kannojia, one of the tenants, opposite party no. 2 started
  resisting the locking of the room. It is also submitted that the offence
  under the SC/ST Act is attracted only when the accused intentionally
  humiliates or intimidates a person solely because he/she belongs to a
  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. If any dispute arises due to some
  other issue and some altercation takes place between the parties, then
  the offence under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act is
  not made out.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that
  it is admitted that the dispute between the parties arose due to eviction
  of the accommodation on the basis of an eviction decree obtained by
  the appellants. When Akhilesh Kannojia, one of the tenants, vacated
  the room and opposite party no. 2 tried to lock it, the appellants came
  on the spot, started using abusive language, and committed maarpeet
  with opposite party no. 2, due to which the informant/opposite party
  no. 2 received serious injuries and a fracture was found in her hand.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
  During the course of arguments, learned counsel for opposite party no.
  2 could not explain why Priyanka Paswan did not lodge any FIR
  against the appellants regarding abusive language as well as caste-
  related remarks allegedly used by the appellants. Counsel for the
  appellants has also failed to explain who actually addressed caste-
  related abusive words to Priyanka Paswan.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of
  Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, has categorically held:

         “18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
         established merely on the fact that the informant is a
                                                     CRLA No. 5851 of 2025
                            3


       member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an
       intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
       Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs
       to such caste. In the present case, the parties are
       litigating over possession of the land. The allegation
       of hurling abuses is against a person who claims title
       over the property. If such person happens to be a
       Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
       the Act is not made out.”

9. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala
  & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, laid down the ingredients to
  constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. It reads
  thus:-

       “55. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence under
       Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are:

       a. Accused person must not be a member of the Scheduled
       Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

       b. Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member
       of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

       c. Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate such a
       person; and

       d. Accused must do so at any place within public view.”

                                               (Emphasis supplied)

       12. Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for the
       intentional insult or intimidation by the accused is that the
       person who is subjected to is a member of a Scheduled
       Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In other words, the offence
       under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that
       the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled
       Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation
       is with the intention to humiliate such a member of the
       community.

       13. To put it briefly - first, the fact that the complainant
       belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would
       not be enough. Secondly, any insult or intimidation towards
                                                      CRLA No. 5851 of 2025
                             4

        the complainant must be on the account of such person
        being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

        14. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity, we
        deem it appropriate to mention that even mere knowledge of
        the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled
        Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract
        Section 3(1)(r).

        15. Further, for an offence to be made out under Section
        3(1)(s), merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
        Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. At the same time,
        saying caste name would also not constitute an offence.

        16. In other words, to constitute an offence under Section
        3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused abuses a
        member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe “by the
        caste name” in any place within public view. Thus, the
        allegations must reveal that abuses were laced with caste
        name, or the caste name had been hurled as an abuse."

12. In the present case, even if the entire prosecution version is presumed
   to be true, the altercation between the parties took place on account of
   resistance at the time when the appellants were trying to lock the room
   vacated by Akhilesh Kannojia, and abusive language is alleged to have
   been used by the appellants, the alleged caste-based abusive remarks
   were not used by the appellants solely on the ground that opposite
   party no. 2 belongs to the SC/ST community.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid
   down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the
   offences under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act are
   not made out.

14. 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 summoning order dated 12.12.2024 passed by
   the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, insofar as it relates to offences under
   Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, is liable to be quashed
   and is hereby quashed. The remaining proceedings relating to offences
   under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3)(2), 352 and 117(2) of the B.N.S.
   and Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act shall continue against the
                                                                                                 CRLA No. 5851 of 2025
                                                                       5


                                           appellants.

                                        15. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.

                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                              (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




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