DR SHAILENDRA SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 756 of 2026

Dr Shailendra Singh And 2 Others
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :     Aditya Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :     G.A., Rajneesh Kumar Singh

Court No. - 51
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for informant and
Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by
the appellants against the impugned summoning orders dated 24.04.2024
passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra, as well as
entire proceeding of Session Case No.304/2024 (State Vs. Shailendra Singh
and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0027 of 2024, under sections 323,
504, 506 IPC and section 3(2)va, 3(1)Da, 3(1) Dha of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Pipari, District-Sonbhadra.

3. Briefly stated, the informant, Vilasi Devi, lodged an FIR against the
present appellants alleging that they were encroaching upon public passage
by raising construction. She informed the police authorities, who reached the
spot, stopped the construction work and directed the appellants to get the
disputed passage demarcated before proceeding further. She stated that the
first incident took place on 09.12.2024. It was further alleged that on the
next day at about 10:00 a.m., all the appellants came to her house, started
abusing her and her family members, and when they objected, they were
assaulted by the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in dispute is
exclusively owned by appellant no. 1 and that he was raising construction
over his own land, which was objected to by the respondent/informant
without any lawful basis. It is submitted that statements of independent
                                                           CRLA No. 756 of 2026
                                 2


witnesses were recorded during investigation, and they have stated that the
disputed land had been purchased by appellant no. 1 through a registered
sale deed executed in his favour. The land in question is Khasra No. 806,
measuring about 0.0380 hectare. It is further submitted that the relevant
revenue records have been annexed along with the appeal.

5. It has further been submitted that the appellants have been falsely
implicated due to opposition raised by the respondent/informant regarding
construction on the said land. It is contended that there is no material on
record to indicate that any caste-related remarks were made by the
appellants. Such allegations are neither clearly disclosed in the FIR nor
substantiated in the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation. It
is also pointed out that the FIR was initially lodged against appellant no. 1
along with two other persons, namely Amrit Lal Yadav and Neeraj Yadav,
but their names were dropped during investigation, which, according to
learned counsel, reflects inconsistency in the prosecution case.

6. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellants were raising
construction over a public passage used by villagers. The same was objected
to by the informant and the police were called to the spot. It has been
specifically mentioned in the FIR that the police had stopped the
construction work and directed the appellants to get the land demarcated
before proceeding further. This, according to them, shows that the appellants
were attempting to raise construction without proper demarcation. It is
further submitted that independent witnesses have stated that persons from
the neighbourhood had also advised the appellants not to raise construction
over the alleged passage. Therefore, the order taking cognizance does not
suffer from any illegality.

7.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The informant, Vilasi Devi, in her statement before the Investigating
Officer, stated that appellant no. 1 along with Amrit Lal Yadav and Neeraj
Yadav was demarcating the alleged public passage on the relevant date. She,
along with other villagers, objected to such demarcation on the ground that
the land was being used as a public passage by the villagers. Appellant no. 1,
however, asserted his ownership over the land and stated that the alleged
passage was passing through his land. She again insisted that construction
                                                           CRLA No. 756 of 2026
                                3


should not be raised without proper demarcation, whereafter she informed
the police. The police reached the spot and restrained appellant no. 1 from
proceeding with the construction. She has further alleged that on the
following day, appellant no.1 again reached the spot along with labourers
and started digging the foundation. The informant again objected to the
same. Thereafter, a quarrel ensued between the parties. On hearing the noise,
her son Vijay Shankar, daughter-in-law Sumitra Devi and others reached the
spot and also objected to the construction. It is alleged that during this
altercation, abuses were exchanged and a scuffle took place between the
parties.

9.   Statements of independent witnesses were also recorded. One such
witness, Devendra Singh, stated that appellant no. 1 claimed ownership over
the land on the basis of a sale deed and was raising construction accordingly.
The informant was objecting and insisting upon demarcation of the land. It is
stated that on being called, the police arrived at the spot and advised both
parties that construction be carried out only after proper demarcation.
Thereafter, both sides dispersed. He further stated that on 10.12.2024 at
about 10:00 a.m., when the appellants again attempted to raise construction,
a heated exchange took place between the parties. Some person belonging to
informant's side threw bricks resulting in head injury to one of the labourers
of appellant no.1. He also stated that during the scuffle, appellant Shailendra
Singh and Dilip Tiwari sustained minor injuries.

10. Other witnesses Smt Shima Devi, Smt.Tara Devi have also made same
statement before I.O. Other independent witnesses Bhim has also
corroborated the statement of other independent witnesses and has stated one
of labour of appellant no.1 Raju Chaudhary sustained head injury after some
on belonging to informant's side threw bricks. They have stated that
informant herself was bent upon picking a quarrel with appellant no.1
whereas appellant was trying to convince her.They have also stated that this
particular incident of throwing brick causing head injury of Raju Chaudhary
ignited the dispute resulting into altercation.

11. Upon consideration of the entire material collected during investigation,
certain material contradictions are apparent on the face of the record. In the
FIR, the informant has specifically alleged that on the next day the
appellants came to her house and abused and assaulted her and her family
members. However, in her statement recorded before the Investigating
                                                          CRLA No. 756 of 2026
                                4


Officer, she has stated that the incident dated 10.12.2024 occurred at the
disputed passage where the appellants were raising construction. This
material improvement regarding the place of occurrence goes to the root of
the prosecution case and creates serious doubt about the veracity of the
allegations. It is well settled that where there are material contradictions
affecting the core of the prosecution case, continuation of proceedings would
not be justified (see State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604).

12. It is further noticeable that in the FIR the informant has not specified
any particular caste-related words allegedly used by the appellants. There is
no mention of the exact casteist expressions either in the FIR or in the
statements recorded during investigation. A bald and omnibus allegation that
casteist remarks were made, without disclosing the specific words and
without prima facie showing that such words were uttered in public view, is
not sufficient to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand , AIRONLINE
2020 SC 812 has clearly held that a dispute arising out of property or civil
rights would not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless the offence is
committed on account of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe and the necessary ingredients are satisfied.

13. Moreover, the statements of independent witnesses, namely Devendra
Singh, Smt. Shima Devi, Smt. Tara Devi and Bhim, clearly suggest that the
dispute arose out of demarcation of land and that the informant herself was
bent upon picking a quarrel, while appellant no. 1 was asserting his
ownership and trying to convince her that the disputed land was his
agricultural land through which no public passage could pass. The witnesses
have also stated that the incident escalated only after a brick was allegedly
thrown from the side of the informant, resulting in injury to one of the
labourers of appellant no. 1, which ignited the scuffle. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 6901
has held that in the absence of specific averments disclosing the ingredients
of the offence under the SC/ST Act, criminal proceedings cannot be
permitted to continue.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the
dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature relating to land
demarcation, which has been given a criminal colour. The essential
ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly under the SC/ST Act, are not
                                                                                              CRLA No. 756 of 2026
                                                                    5


                                    prima facie made out from the material on record. As observed in State of
                                    Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604 where the allegations do not disclose
                                    commission of any cognizable offence or where the proceedings are
                                    manifestly attended with mala fide intention, the High Court would be
                                    justified in exercising its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of the
                                    Court.

                                    15.   Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned summoning order
                                    dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
                                    Sonbhadra, as well as the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 304/2024
                                    (State vs. Shailendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0027
                                    of 2024, are hereby quashed.

                                    February 24, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




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