KRISHNA MOHAN @ KRISH UPADHYAYA @ KULLU AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8075 of 2026



Krishna Mohan @ Krish Upadhyaya @ Kullu And
2 Others                                                   .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

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


Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Gaurav Dwivedi,        Kamlesh       Kumar
                                 Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

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

1. As per office report dated 23.09.2026, notice has been personally
served upon O.P. No.2.

2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2.

3. Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
appellants and learned AGA for the State.

4. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a
prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 25.05.2026 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Session Case No.895 of 2026 (State of
U.P. vs. Wadi @ Manish and others) arising out of Case Crime No.234 of
2025 under Sections 115(2), 131, 352, 351(2) and 324(2) BNS and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kirawali, District-
Agra. He further prays to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case.

5. In the first information report, the accused persons, namely Kanhaiyalal
Sharma, Wadi alias Manish, Samrat, Krishmohan alias Kallu and two to
three other unknown persons, have been named. The allegation contained
in the FIR is that the complainant/victim, who is posted as Assistant
                                                        CRLA No. 8075 of 2026
                               2


Credit Manager in Bajaj Finance Limited at Kirawali, District Agra, was
present in the office when accused Kanhaiyalal Sharma, along with his
associates, reached there, caused injuries to him and other persons and
also used casteist slurs against him.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have
been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations made
in the FIR are wholly false and concocted. It is submitted that the injured
Amit Singh was medically examined on 23.08.2025 and the injuries found
upon him were simple in nature. No specific role has been assigned to the
appellants for causing the alleged injuries. It is further submitted that
although several persons were present at the place of occurrence, the
Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet only against the
appellants. The appellants have no previous criminal history and the
present appeal is the first appeal filed by them against the summoning
order dated 25.05.2026. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that
the summoning order is not justified and is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned A.G.A. submits that the appellants have been duly named in
the FIR and specific allegations have been made against them regarding
the incident. It is submitted that after investigation, the Investigating
Officer found sufficient material against the appellants and accordingly
submitted charge-sheet No. 214 of 2025, on which cognizance was taken
by the learned Magistrate on 25.05.2026. Thereafter, the learned Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra, has rightly summoned the appellants to face
trial. The medical examination and subsequent X-ray of the injured are
part of the record, and the disputed questions regarding the truthfulness of
the allegations, the role of the appellants and the evidentiary value of the
material cannot appropriately be adjudicated at this stage. Accordingly, it
is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned
summoning order does not call for interference.

8. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was initiated and, thereafter, on
the basis of the material collected during investigation, the Investigating
Officer submitted the charge-sheet, upon which cognizance was taken
against the accused-appellants. It is an admitted position, both from the
FIR and the statements of the injured person, that the alleged incident
                                                        CRLA No. 8075 of 2026
                               3


took place inside the office building of Bajaj Finance Limited and,
therefore, was not within public view. There is also no reliable material in
the FIR or in the statement of the injured person to establish that the
alleged casteist slurs were uttered with the intention to insult or humiliate
the victim/complainant on the sole ground of his belonging to the SC/ST
category. At the same time, it is not disputed that the injured persons
sustained injuries, and the injury report available on record corroborates
the statements of the injured persons recorded during the course of
investigation.

9. 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.

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
                                                         CRLA No. 8075 of 2026
                                4


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).

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
     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
                                                          CRLA No. 8075 of 2026
                                5


     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 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)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) 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).

13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously
absent from the material collected during investigation, and the
                                                         CRLA No. 8075 of 2026
                                6


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.

14. Consequently, the summoning order dated 25.05.2026 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Session Case No.895 of 2026 (State of
U.P. vs. Wadi @ Manish and others) arising out of Case Crime No.234 of
2025 under Sections 115(2), 131, 352, 351(2) and 324(2) BNS and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kirawali, District-
Agra, is modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of the
offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act.

15. However, sufficient material is available on record to proceed against
the appellants under the provisions of BNS. Accordingly, the proceedings
against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 115(2), 131, 352,
351(2) and 324(2) 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. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants states that they are not enlarged on
bail. Therefore, the appellants 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.

18. 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.

19. 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
                                                                                        CRLA No. 8075 of 2026
                                                                 7


                                    of the appellants.

                                    20. 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 48 hours.



                                                                                           (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Ankit.




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