AMRITA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8130 of 2026

Amrita And 3 Others
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Amit Kumar Shukla, Kuldeep Narayan
                                 Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, G.A.,
                                 Shashank Tripathi

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri D.K. Tripathi, 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 summoning order dated 06.06.2026 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in S.S.T No.182 of 2026 arising out of
Complaint Case No.95 of 2024 (Registration No.119 of 2024) under
Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC 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.- Chandwak, District- Jaunpur. He further prays to
stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case.

3. From the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is evident that the
accused persons, namely Amrita, Kajal, Hirawati, Madhu and Vijay, have
been specifically named, with the allegation that they, armed with lathi
and danda, reached Arazi No. 153/352 with an intention to take illegal
possession and caused injuries to the injured persons. The complaint also
contains allegations regarding the use of casteist slurs.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
summoning order dated 06.06.2026 has been passed without proper
consideration of the material available on record and without recording
adequate reasons. It is submitted that the dispute between the parties is
essentially with regard to property and possession, and a cross-case/NCR
                                                       CRLA No. 8130 of 2026
                               2


dated 30.03.2024 was lodged by appellant no. 3 against the complainant
side concerning the same occurrence. The documentary evidence,
including the medical reports, civil proceedings and NCR, has not been
properly appreciated. It is further submitted that there are material
contradictions between the allegations made in the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the
statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The injuries are stated to be minor
and the allegations regarding caste-related abuses are also disputed. The
appellants have no criminal history and have been falsely implicated in
the complaint case arising out of the property dispute. It is, therefore,
submitted that the impugned summoning order suffers from non-
application of judicial mind and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the
complainant has specifically alleged that on 30.03.2024 the appellants,
armed with sticks and rods, forcibly attempted to interfere with her
property and assaulted the complainant, her daughter and daughter-in-law,
besides extending threats and using caste-related abuses. It is submitted
that the allegations are supported by the statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the medical examination of the injured
persons. The learned court, after considering the complaint, the statements
of the complainant and witnesses and the material available on record,
found sufficient ground to summon the appellants for the offences in
question. The existence of a property dispute or a cross-case does not, by
itself, negate the criminal allegations, particularly when specific
allegations of assault, intimidation and caste-based abuse have been
made. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned summoning order is
based on the material on record and calls for no interference.

6. In the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the role and
involvement of the accused persons in causing injuries have been alleged,
which finds corroboration from the injury reports available on record.
However, the injury reports dated 02.04.2024, in respect of the alleged
incident dated 30.03.2024, disclose only simple injuries. It is also an
admitted position that NCR No. 30 of 2024 under Sections 323 and 504
IPC was lodged by the appellant side in relation to the same occurrence.
Further, a civil suit, being Case No. 307 of 2024, was instituted by
                                                        CRLA No. 8130 of 2026
                               3


Bhullan, stated to be the father of appellant no. 4, against Manilal, who, as
stated by learned counsel for the appellants, is the husband of the O.P.
No.2. Thus, the existence of a civil dispute between the parties is not in
dispute. It is also noteworthy in respect of the land in dispute, Arazi No.
128 is mentioned in the said civil suit, whereas Arazi No. 153 has been
mentioned in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. So far as the
offences under the SC/ST Act are concerned, there is no specific and
distinct averment in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
indicating the particular casteist words allegedly used by the appellants or
showing that such words were uttered with the intention to insult or
humiliate the complainant on the ground of her belonging to the
Scheduled Caste/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
                                                         CRLA No. 8130 of 2026
                                4


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).

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
                                                          CRLA No. 8130 of 2026
                                5


     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 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
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(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).

11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
                                                         CRLA No. 8130 of 2026
                                6


opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(va) 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 summoning order dated 06.06.2026 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in S.S.T No.182 of 2026 arising out of
Complaint Case No.95 of 2024 (Registration No.119 of 2024) under
Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC 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.- Chandwak, District- Jaunpur, 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.

13. However, the sufficient material is available on record to proceed
against the appellants under the provisions of IPC. Accordingly, the
proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 147,
323, 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
                                                                                        CRLA No. 8130 of 2026
                                                                 7


                                    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,
                                    Jaunpur within four days.



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




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