ADWAIT NARAYAN SINGHversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9766 of 2024

Adwait Narayan Singh
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Brahma Nand Singh, Raj Kumar Gupta,
                                 Satish, Shanu Bhatt
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A., Indra Dev

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

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant/applicant, Sri Indra Dev, learned counsel for opposite party no.2
and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the charge-sheet dated 2.3.2022 as well as the
impugned summoning order dated 30.3.2022 passed by Special Judge,
SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Special Session Trial
No.139 of 2022 (State Vs. Adwait Narayan Singh & Ors.), arising out of
Case Crime No.409 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Georgetown,
District- Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated merely on account of the matrimonial dispute between
him and the victim. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially
matrimonial in nature and there is no allegation that the appellant used
casteist slurs or insulted or humiliated the victim on account of her caste,
and therefore no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. Hence, in the
absence of any specific role or incriminating material against the
appellant, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the summoning order deserves
to be set aside.
                                                        CRLA No. 9766 of 2024
                               2


4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA, has
opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that the allegations made
in the FIR, the statement of the victim and the material collected during
investigation disclose the involvement of the accused appellant in the
matrimonial dispute and the acts of harassment and misbehaviour with the
victim. It is submitted that the allegations are required to be examined
during trial and, at this stage, the defence version cannot be considered.
Learned counsel further submits that the victim admittedly belongs to the
Scheduled Caste category and the allegations, coupled with the material
collected during investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of
offences alleged against the appellant. Accordingly, it is prayed that no
interference is warranted at this stage and the appeal be dismissed.

5. In the FIR, the accused appellants, namely, Adwait Narayan Singh,
Pratibha Singh and Amit Narayan, along with other members of the
matrimonial family, have been named. It is stated in the FIR that the
victim is the legally wedded wife of appellant. It has also been stated by
learned counsel for the appellant and confirmed by learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no.2 that the parties solemnized their
marriage in the year 2008 and two children were born out of the wedlock.
Admittedly, the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, whereas
her husband, the appellant, belongs to a non-Scheduled Caste. The
allegation against the appellant is that he was having an extramarital
relationship with co-accused Pratibha Singh, who is also named in the
FIR. It has further been alleged in the FIR, as well as in the case diary and
the statement of the victim, that all the members of the matrimonial
family, including the brother-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
younger brother-in-law and other family members, used to support the
appellant. However, there is no specific or distinct allegation either in the
FIR, in the statement of the victim, or in the case diary that the appellant
used any casteist slur with an intention to insult or humiliate the victim on
the ground of her belonging to the SC/ST category. The material on
record indicates that the dispute between the appellant and the victim is
essentially matrimonial and arises out of their strained relationship and
the alleged extramarital relationship of the appellant with co-accused
Pratibha Singh.
                                                         CRLA No. 9766 of 2024
                                3


6. So far as the allegations relating to quarrelling, altercation, assault and
misbehaviour with the victim are concerned, the material collected during
investigation disclose the commission of offences under the IPC against
the appellant. However, there is no cogent and specific material to prima
facie establish the commission of any offence under the SC/ST Act
against him.

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. 9766 of 2024
                                    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. 9766 of 2024
                                   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. Having considered the rival submissions, the material brought on
record, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decisions, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the
FIR and the material collected during investigation/inquiry do not prima
facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The dispute
between the parties primarily emanates from matrimonial discord, and the
criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated in the backdrop of the
said dispute. 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. 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 she belonged to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.

11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offences under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) 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 is partly allowed.

12. The order dated 30.3.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST
Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Special Session Trial
                                                                                         CRLA No. 9766 of 2024
                                                                 6


                                    No.139 of 2022 (State Vs. Adwait Narayan Singh & Ors.), arising out of
                                    Case Crime No.409 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
                                    and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
                                    Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Georgetown,
                                    District- Prayagraj, is modified to the extent that the appellant stands
                                    discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r),
                                    3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

                                    13. Nevertheless, since a prima facie case is made out for the offences
                                    punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, the prosecution in
                                    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.

                                    14. 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 8, 2026
                                    RA




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