HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11676 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal filed under Section 14 (A)(1) of S.C. & S.T Act to quash the impugned summoning order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 91 of 2023, Ramkesh Vs. Anil & Ors., whereby the appellants have been summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Ghanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. Tersely, as per prosecution case, the complainant alleged that on 01.11.2014 at about 11.00 A.M., the accused persons forcibly passed a combine machine through his wheat field, causing a loss of about Rs.10,000/-, and, when his wife objected, threatened her with dire consequences. It was further alleged that on 04.11.2014 at about 7.00 A.M., after the departure of the police outpost in-charge, the accused appellants allegedly trespassed into the complainant's house, assaulted his wife and children with lathis and fists, abused them using caste-related insulting words and threatened them with death. . 4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned summoning order dated 11.10.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record. It is argued that although the complainant alleged Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prince Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shobha Srivastava, Vijay Kumar Dubey Anil Kumar And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) assault and beating but no medical evidence or medical report was produced in support of the allegations. The learned Magistrate has summoned the appellant without there being sufficient material against them and without properly considering the material accompanying the complaint and the complainant's statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind and passed the impugned order mechanically. The appellant has no criminal antecedents, has never been convicted and is not wanted in any other criminal case. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the complaint and the statements recorded during the enquiry disclose prima facie material against the appellant, sufficient for issuance of summons. At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to examine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused, and medical evidence is not indispensable where the allegations are otherwise supported by the complainant and witnesses. It is argued that the learned Magistrate has duly considered the material on record and rightly summoned the appellant for the offences alleged. The absence of criminal antecedents does not absolve the appellant from liability where a prima facie case is made out. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The complaint was filed against six accused persons namely Anil, Sadhu, Ankur, Rajdev, Lalman and Ram Lakhan alleging two separate incidents dated 01.11.2014 and 04.11.2014. In respect of the first incident, it was alleged that the accused persons forcibly passed away a combine machine through his wheat, causing a loss of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. However, neither the complaint nor the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC disclose the ownership of the combine machine or the authority of the accused to take it away, nor is there any reliable material substantiating the alleged loss. Regarding the second incident, it was alleged that the accused persons assaulted the complainant and his wife inside their house. In this case the second incident is said to be occurred on 04.11.2014 at about 7.00 A.M. whereas in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. time of second incident is said to be occurred on 04.11.2014 at about 6.00 A.M.. So far time is concerned, there is minor contradictions in the complaint or in the statement of complainant regarding the time of the incident. In this case no medical/injury report has been placed on record despite the allegation of assault. Both incidents allegedly occurred on 01.11.2014 and 04.11.2014, whereas the complaint was instituted only on 02.03.2015, without any plausible explanation for the delay. Further, there is no specific or reliable allegation that the accused used any casteist slur with intent to insult or humiliate the complainant on the ground of his belonging CRLA No. 11676 of 2024 2 to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. Considering the absence of reliable supporting material, unexplained delay, and lack of specific allegations attracting the SC/ST Act, the complaint appeared to have been instituted with an ulterior motive. 8. 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 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 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 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 CRLA No. 11676 of 2024 3 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 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 CRLA No. 11676 of 2024 4 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 Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The material collected during inquiry does not indicate that the alleged words or conduct were actuated by the caste or were intended to intentionally insult or humiliate any person 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 further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma and Shajan Skaria (supra). Likewise, the allegations are wholly insufficient to satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC. 12. In view of the settled legal position and the absence of foundational facts constituting the alleged offences, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be sustained in law. The appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. 13. The impugned summoning order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 91 of 2023, Ramkesh Vs. Anil & Ors., whereby the appellants have been summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Ghanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar are set aside. Consequently, the proceedings under Sections Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants Anil, Sadhu, Ankur, Rajdev Ram Lakhan stand quashed. 14. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to court concerned through CRLA No. 11676 of 2024 5 District & Sessions Judge within 48 hours. September 9, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 11676 of 2024 6 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad