SMT LAXMI DEVI CHAUHAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7797 of 2026

Smt Laxmi Devi Chauhan And Another
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                 Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)             :    Pankaj Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :    G.A., Prem Chandra Dwivedi

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

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri
Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA
for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a
prayer to set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.01.2025
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Complaint/Special Case
No.75 of 2024 (SST No.111 of 2025) under Sections 323, 452, 504 and
506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Etmadaulla, District- Agra.

3. The application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was treated as a complaint during the course of inquiry. On the basis of
the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the
appellants were summoned for the offences under Sections 323, 452, 504
and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have
been falsely implicated in the complaint arising out of a prior dispute
between the parties. It is submitted that a cross-FIR had already been
lodged by appellant no. 1 on 27.11.2023, which culminated in a charge-
sheet, whereas the present complaint was filed subsequently on
15.12.2023. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the
complaint are false and exaggerated and that the complainant and his
witness have merely reiterated the allegations without any independent
                                                         CRLA No. 7797 of 2026
                                2


corroboration. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned
summoning/cognizance order was passed without compliance with the
mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section 223 BNSS, particularly
without affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. It is also
submitted that the delay in approaching this Court occurred on account of
lack of proper legal advice and knowledge of the impugned proceedings,
and that the appellants have no criminal antecedents except the present
case. On these grounds, the appellants seek condonation of delay and
quashing of the impugned order and consequential proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2
submit that the complaint discloses specific and serious allegations
against the appellants, including abuse by caste-related words, criminal
intimidation, trespass and threatening the complainant with a pistol. It is
submitted that the incident dated 27.11.2023 has been specifically
narrated in the complaint and the version of opposite party no. 2 is
supported by the statements of witnesses Ajay Pratap and Prem Lata
recorded by the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the
appellants have been regularly threatening and intimidating opposite party
no. 2 and other persons of the locality and that complaints were also made
before the police and administrative authorities. Learned counsel submits
that the subsequent cross-case lodged by appellant no. 1 does not by itself
discredit the complaint, and the learned Magistrate, after considering the
complaint and the statements recorded in support thereof, rightly
proceeded against the appellants. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing of
the summoning/cognizance order and the consequential proceedings is
opposed.

6. Admittedly, a cross-case, being Case Crime No. 647 of 2023, was
registered from the appellants' side against the informant side under
Sections 452, 323, 427, 354-B and 504 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the
POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the appellants as well as opposite party
no. 2 both admit that charge-sheet has been filed in the said case, which is
stated to be the cross-case. It is also an admitted fact that both parties are
residents of the same locality and are neighbours. However, from a
perusal of the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C., there is no specific averment that the alleged incident
                                                        CRLA No. 7797 of 2026
                               3


took place within public view. Rather, it has been specifically stated in the
complaint that the accused-appellants entered the house of the
complainant. Further, there is no specific allegation that the accused-
appellants used any casteist slur with the intention to insult or humiliate
the complainant on the ground that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.

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. 7797 of 2026
                                    4


9. 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 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
                                                               CRLA No. 7797 of 2026
                                   5


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

10. 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
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 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 (supra)
further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma & Shajan Skaria (supra).

11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the
material collected during investigation, 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.

12. Consequently, the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.01.2025
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Complaint/Special Case
No.75 of 2024 (SST No.111 of 2025) under Sections 323, 452, 504 and
506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
                                                                                             CRLA No. 7797 of 2026
                                                                    6


                                    Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Etmadaulla, District- Agra, is
                                    modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of the offences
                                    punishable under Sections 3(1)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

                                    13. However, there is sufficient material available on record to proceed
                                    against the appellants under the provisions of IPC. Accordingly, the
                                    proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 323,
                                    452, 504 and 506 IPC 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.

                                    14. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.

                                    15. If the appellants are not on bail, they are directed to appear before the
                                    court concerned and move bail application, within two weeks from today.
                                    It is made clear that no application seeking extension of the aforesaid
                                    period shall be entertained by this court.

                                    16. In case, the appellants move bail application before the court
                                    concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court
                                    expeditiously and preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid
                                    down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court regarding surrender and
                                    bail.

                                    17. In case, the appellants fail to appear before the court concerned within
                                    the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate
                                    coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence
                                    of the appellants.

                                    18. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge,
                                    Agra within four days.


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




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