SAMSHAD @ ALLAHABADI @ SHAMSHAD AHMAD AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8010 of 2026


Samshad @ Allahabadi @ Shamshad Ahmad And
3 Others                                                 .....Appellant(s)
                                 Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                       .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)      : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)     : G.A., Sharda Prasad        Singh,    Shri
                                Raghavendra Singh

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite
party 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 charge-sheet dated 14.7.2025, supplementary
charge-sheet      dated     30.1.2026       as     well   as impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated 2.7.2026 passed by Special Judge,
SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Prayagraj in Special Case No.912
of 2026 (State vs. Samshad @ Allahabadi & Ors.), arising out of Case
Crime No.82 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present case has
been lodged with an ulterior motive on account of longstanding criminal
rivalry between the parties. It is contended that the earlier incident of
6.9.1994 culminated in the conviction of appellant nos.1 and 4, against
which their criminal appeals are pending before this Court and they have
already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that there is no
reliable material to show that the appellants ever intimidated or
pressurized the informant, victim or any witness in connection with the
earlier case. The present case is merely based on a vague allegation of
intimidation, without attributing any specific overt act to any of the
appellants, and no injury has been caused. It is also urged that the
                                                        CRLA No. 8010 of 2026
                               2


informant is in the habit of lodging false criminal cases, as reflected from
the documents annexed with the appeal. Therefore, the impugned
summoning order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA,
opposed the appeal and submits that the impugned order has been passed
in accordance with law. It is contended that the FIR and the statements
recorded during the inquiry disclose prima facie allegations of criminal
intimidation and commission of offences. It is further submitted that at the
stage of cognizance and summoning, the Court is only required to
examine whether a prima facie case is made out and not to appreciate the
evidence in detail. Therefore, the impugned summoning order does not
warrant interference by this Court.

5. In the FIR, four accused persons, namely Shamsad alias Allahabadi,
Mirza Ahmed, Kallu Yadav and Ram Singh, have been named. The FIR
has been registered under Sections 351, 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va)
of the SC/ST Act. Admittedly, the FIR itself discloses that there existed
previous criminal rivalry between the informant/victim and the accused
persons. It is also admitted that the alleged earlier incident occurred on
6.9.1994, in which accused appellant nos.1 and 4 were convicted by the
Special Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section
3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Their criminal appeals against the said judgment are pending before this
Court, and they have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in
Criminal Appeal Nos.1096 of 2022 and 1894 of 2022 vide order dated
21.08.2024. It is further evident that no reliable material has been brought
on record by opposite party no.2 to demonstrate that the accused
appellants had intimidated, threatened or pressurized the informant,
victim or any witness in connection with the earlier criminal case during
the pendency of the trial before the Special Court. After the judgment of
conviction in the earlier case, the allegation that the accused appellants
threatened the informant to compromise the said matter does not appear to
inspire confidence. The present case is not one involving any physical
injury. The allegation is confined to intimidation, and no specific or
distinct overt act has been attributed to any of the accused appellants
either in the FIR or in the statements of the informant and the victim. The
                                                       CRLA No. 8010 of 2026
                               3


contention of the appellants that the informant is in the habit of lodging
false criminal cases has also been supported by documents annexed as
annexure-8 to the appeal.

6. In the case of Swaran Singh Vs State (2008)8SCC 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.

7. 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
Supreme 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).

8. Having considered the rival submissions, the material brought on
record, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
                                                                                           CRLA No. 8010 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    aforesaid decisions, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the
                                    First Information Report and the material collected during
                                    investigation/inquiry do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients
                                    of the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. In
                                    the absence of any specific allegation of intentional caste-based insult or
                                    humiliation attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, permitting the
                                    criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process
                                    of law. Consequently, the impugned charge-sheet and the summoning
                                    order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

                                    9. Consequently, the charge-sheet dated 14.7.2025, supplementary
                                    charge-sheet    dated    30.1.2026    as    well     as    impugned
                                    cognizance/summoning order dated 2.7.2026 passed by Special Judge,
                                    SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Prayagraj in Special Case No.912
                                    of 2026 (State vs. Samshad @ Allahabadi & Ors.), arising out of Case
                                    Crime No.82 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section
                                    3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
                                    Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj, are hereby set
                                    aside.

                                    10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

                                    11. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to
                                    the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge concerned by e-
                                    mail/FAX within 48 hours.



                                                                                              (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    RA




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad