HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2365 of 2022 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, 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 appellants with a prayer to set aside the charge-sheet no.11 of 2022 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 appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated merely on account of their relationship with the matrimonial family, without any specific or distinct allegation against them in the FIR, statement of the victim or the case diary. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially matrimonial in nature and arises out of the alleged extramarital relationship of accused Adwait Narayan Singh with co-accused Pratibha Singh. There is no allegation that any of the appellants used casteist slurs or insulted or Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nityanand Srivastava, Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Akhilesh Kumar And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) humiliated the victim on account of her caste, and therefore no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. It is further submitted that the appellants reside at a different place and have no direct concern with the matrimonial dispute. Hence, in the absence of any specific role or incriminating material against them, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA, has opposed the prayer of the appellants 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 appellants. 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. However, except the accused Adwait Narayan Singh, no specific or distinct allegation has been levelled against the appellants. It is stated in the FIR that the victim is the legally wedded wife of accused Adwait Narayan Singh. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the appellants and confirmed by learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 that accused Adwait Narayan Singh and the victim have 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, accused CRLA No. 2365 of 2022 2 Adwait Narayan Singh, belongs to a non-Scheduled Caste. The principal allegation against accused Adwait Narayan Singh 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 accused Adwait Narayan Singh. 6. 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 appellants used any casteist slur with an intention to insult or humiliate the victim on the ground of her belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category. The material on record indicates that the dispute between accused Adwait Narayan Singh 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. It is also significant that the residential address of appellant Adwait Narayan Singh is 4/8, EWS Colony, Shiv Nagar, Allahpur, Police Station Georgetown, District Prayagraj, whereas the appellants Akhilesh Kumar and his wife Smt. Amita reside at Firojpur, Post Vishnupur, Khutahan, District Jaunpur. Thus, their residential addresses are distinct and there is no material indicating any direct connection of the appellants with the alleged matrimonial dispute. 7. 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 CRLA No. 2365 of 2022 3 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 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). 9. 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 First Information Report and the material collected during investigation 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. 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 CRLA No. 2365 of 2022 4 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. 10. Consequently, the charge-sheet no.11 of 2022 dated 2.3.2022 and the impugned 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, are hereby set aside in respect of the present appellants only. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 12. 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. September 8, 2026 RA CRLA No. 2365 of 2022 5 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad