YOGENDRA SINGH RAJPUTversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7788 of 2026

Yogendra Singh Rajput
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Pramod Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   G.A.

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

1. As per office report, notice has been duly served upon opposite party
no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellant to set aside the impugned summoning order dated
29.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba in Complaint Case No. 93 of
2024, (Smt. Sampat Vs. Yogendra Singh Rajput), under Sections 452, 323,
354 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka),
3(1)(Ba)(I) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, P.S. Kulpahad, District Mahoba.

4. Tersely, as per prosecution case, the complainant, a resident of Village
Magraul Kalan, District Mahoba, alleged that on 31.05.2024, accused
Yogendra Singh Rajput, son of Jagdish Rajput, forcibly snatched her bag
while abusing her. The bag allegedly contained Aadhaar cards of her
children, educational documents and three pairs of old silver toe rings. The
said articles were subsequently returned by the police. It is further alleged
that, being aggrieved by the complainant's complaint to the police, on
03.06.2024 at about 6:00 P.M., the accused entered the complainant's house,
abused and threatened her, alleging that her complaint had caused him a loss
of Rs10,000/-. He allegedly threatened to kill her and stated that he would
disfigure her face and cause further harm to her husband. Thereafter, he
allegedly assaulted the complainant and tore her clothes while attempting to
                                                          CRLA No. 7788 of 2026
                                 2


commit a wrongful act.

5. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order
dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (S.C.& S.T. Act), Mahoba is wholly illegal and not
sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is based on surmises and
conjunctures as such same is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
wrongly summoned for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506
I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) of the S.C.
& S.T. Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the court
below has committed an error in summoning the appellant for the alleged
offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, as the basic ingredients of the said offences are not disclosed
from the allegations contained in the complaint. It is contended that the
alleged occurrence took place inside the house of the complainant and,
therefore, the requirement of the occurrence having taken place at a place
within "public view" is not satisfied. It is further submitted that the
allegations are omnibus in nature and that the dispute between the parties
had arisen in the backdrop of the earlier incident concerning the alleged
taking away of the complainant's bag, which was subsequently resolved by
way of compromise.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellant and submits that, at the stage of summoning, the court
is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the
basis of the material available on record. It is contended that the statements
of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. support the allegations made in the complaint and disclose the
commission of the alleged offences. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the
allegations regarding assault and use of caste-related abusive words cannot
be discarded merely on the ground that no medical report has been filed,
particularly with regard to the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. It is,
accordingly, submitted that the summoning order does not call for
interference at this stage.

8. Admittedly, the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
treated as a complaint case. During the course of inquiry, on the basis of the
                                                          CRLA No. 7788 of 2026
                                3


statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant was summoned by the court
concerned. As per the complaint, the incident in question is alleged to have
occurred on 31.05.2024. It is alleged that, on the said date, the accused-
appellant, Yogendra Singh, who resides in the same village as the
complainant, took away her bag containing the Aadhaar cards of her
children, educational certificates and silver toe rings. The said articles were
subsequently returned by the police pursuant to a compromise between the
parties. It is further alleged that, being aggrieved by the said compromise,
the appellant, on 03.06.2024 at about 6:00 P.M., entered the house of the
complainant and assaulted her, causing injuries. So far as the offence under
Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, production of a medical report is not an
indispensable requirement in each and every case, particularly at the stage of
summoning, where the court is required to examine whether prima facie
material exists on record. However, insofar as the offences under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are
concerned, the complaint itself alleges that the appellant entered the house of
the complainant and used caste-related abusive words. Thus, according to
the allegations contained in the complaint, the occurrence took place inside
the house of the complainant and not at a place within 'public view'.
Consequently, the essential ingredient relating to the commission of the
alleged offence at a place within public view is not prima facie made out
from the allegations contained in the complaint. Furthermore no specific or
distinct word relating to castiest slur has been mentioned either in the
complaint or in the statement of the complaint/injured that the appellant has
used casteist slur with intention or knowledge in order to insult or humiliate
on the sole ground that victim belongs S.C. & S.T. category. For the purpose
of summoning the accused persons and initiate proceedings against them
under the S.C./S.T. Act, it requires primarily that "casteist slur" should be
used with intention or knowledge in order to insult or humiliate on the 'sole
basis' that the victim/the complainant belongs to S.C. & S.T.
category. Accordingly, so far as the offences under the I.P.C. are concerned,
sufficient prima facie material is available on record to sustain the
summoning order. However, insofar as the offences under the S.C. & S.T.
Act are concerned, the requisite ingredient of the occurrence having taken
place in a place within public view is not prima facie established.

9. In the case of Swaran singh Vs State (2008)8SCC 435 the Hon'ble Apex
                                                          CRLA No. 7788 of 2026
                                 4


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.

10. 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 Section 3(1) (r).

11. In the case of Shajan Skraria vs. State of Kerala and another, 2024
SCC Online SC 2249 the Hon'ble Apex Court by quoting the cases of
Hitesh Verma (Supra) has held as under:

     "13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate
     the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent
     to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
     Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an
     offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on
     account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
                                                     CRLA No. 7788 of 2026
                           5


Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic
conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as
they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the
Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section
of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and
harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the
parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or
harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in
accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family
members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then
the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason
that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste."
In Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so
as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The
offence must have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe.

Thus, the dictum as laid aforesaid is that the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the
fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a
member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In
other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of
intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person
who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would
attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is
committed against a person who happens to be a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section
3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the
intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is
subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. I
say so because the object behind the enactment of the Act, 1989
was to provide stringent provisions for punishment of offences
                                                          CRLA No. 7788 of 2026
                                6


     which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST
     communities for the reason of their caste status."

12. Accordingly, having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and upon a careful scrutiny of the entire material available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed
to disclose even a prima facie case attracting the provisions of
Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
material collected during inquiry does not indicate that the alleged words or
conduct were actuated by the caste of the informant or were intended to
intentionally insult or humiliate the informant on the ground that he
belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Equally absent is any
material to establish that the alleged occurrence took place in a place within
"public view", which is a sine qua non for constituting the offence under the
aforesaid provisions, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran
Singh further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma and Shajan Skaria (supra).

13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offences under
Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) of the SC/ST Act are
conspicuously      absent   from    the     material     collected   during
investigation/inquiry, and the continuance of proceedings for the said
offences would amount to an 'abuse of the process' of law. Consequently, the
appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act succeeds in part and is allowed
partly.

14. The summoning order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act),
Mahoba in Complaint Case No. 93 of 2024, (Smt. Sampat Vs. Yogendra
Singh Rajput), under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and
Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) of the S.C. & S.T.
Act, P.S. Kulpahad, District Mahoba, is modified to the extent that the
appellant Yogendra Singh Rajput stands discharged of the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I)of
the SC/ST Act.


15. Nevertheless, since a prima facie case is made out for the offences
punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. the prosecution in
                                                                                            CRLA No. 7788 of 2026
                                                                   7


                                    respect thereof shall continue and be concluded expeditiously, in accordance
                                    with law. The trial court shall proceed uninfluenced by any observation
                                    made herein on the merits of the case.

                                    16. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
                                    concerned within 48 hours.



                                                                                               (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Asha




Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad