HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9766 of 2024 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. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Brahma Nand Singh, Raj Kumar Gupta, Satish, Shanu Bhatt Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Indra Dev Adwait Narayan Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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. September 8, 2026 RA CRLA No. 9766 of 2024 6 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad