HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3966 of 2023 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. As per office report dated 17.05.2023, notice has already been served upon O.P. No.2 personally. 2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2. 3. Heard Shri Shashi Dhar Shukla, 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 26.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti in Complaint Case No.26 of 2020 (Pappu vs. Kalam and others) under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kaptanganj, District- Basti. He further prays to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned summoning order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti in Complaint Case No. 26 of 2020 is illegal and unsustainable. It is submitted that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as a complaint on 17.01.2020, followed by recording of the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.; however, the learned court below summoned the appellants without properly appreciating the material on record and without recording adequate satisfaction. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shashi Dhar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Kalam And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) essentially a land dispute, the parties being residents of the same village, and the allegations, including the alleged caste-related abuse, are false and motivated. No offence under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. The impugned order was passed arbitrarily, without proper application of judicial mind, and without recording satisfaction regarding service of summons. The appellants have no criminal antecedents and have been falsely implicated due to the existing land dispute. Accordingly, the summoning order deserves to be quashed and further proceedings stayed. 6. Learned AGA submits that the complaint discloses specific allegations against the appellants and the learned court below, after considering the complaint, the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has rightly summoned them. The contention that the case arises out of a land dispute is a matter of defence and cannot be examined in detail at the stage of summoning. It is further submitted that the appellants have an adequate opportunity to establish their defence during trial and that the impugned summoning order does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal infirmity warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and the proceedings before the court below be permitted to continue. 7. In the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., allegations were made against Kalam, Chotkan, Karim, Ajmal, Imran, Noor Afsa and Sufia Khatun. The application was subsequently treated as a complaint, whereafter the statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that although paragraph 3 of the complaint refers to an incident allegedly involving two police personnel, said to have assaulted the victim with a belt at the instance of previous village chief Banne @ Aejaz Ahmed after taking Rs.10,000/-, there is no reliable medical evidence or injury report on record connecting the appellants with any injury. Moreover, in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has nowhere stated that the appellants actually caused him any injury. At best, the allegation is of instigation and use of vulgar language, including the word “chamar.” It is further submitted that the material on record indicates that the dispute essentially arose out of the demolition of a wall allegedly constructed by CRLA No. 3966 of 2023 2 the complainant, giving rise to allegations of mischief. However, neither the complaint nor the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. contain any specific allegation that the alleged caste-related word was used with the intention to insult or humiliate the victim on account of his belonging to the SC/ST community. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act are absent. Thus, the sole basis of the incident is the demolition of wall and not the caste of the victim, who belong to the SC/ST community. Accordingly, no material to establish the offence under Section 323 IPC or the requisite caste-based intention under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, and therefore the summoning order, to that extent, is unsustainable. 8. 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. 9. 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 CRLA No. 3966 of 2023 3 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). 10. 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 CRLA No. 3966 of 2023 4 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." 11. 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 Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) 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). 12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) 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 CRLA No. 3966 of 2023 5 of the SC/ST Act succeeds in part. 13. Consequently, the summoning order dated 26.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti in Complaint Case No.26 of 2020 (Pappu vs. Kalam and others) under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kaptanganj, District- Basti, is modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of the offences punishable under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. 14. However, sufficient evidence is available on record to proceed against the appellants under Sections 147, 427, 504 and 506 IPC. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 147, 427, 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. 15. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. 16. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge, Basti within three days. September 9, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 3966 of 2023 6 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad