2025:UHC:11031 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No.92 of 2021 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionists assailing the order dated 14.02.2020, whereby the learned District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoned the revisionists to face the trial in Special Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2017, arising out of an offence registered under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. According to the revisionists, although their names find mention in the First Information Report, they were not sent up for trial in the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; however, subsequent to the recording of the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, the learned Court below invoked its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists to face trial, and it is this summoning order which is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that a bare reading of the depositions of P.W.1 (father of the 2025:UHC:11031 victim), P.W.2 (the victim) and P.W.3 (brother of the victim) would reveal that no specific, distinct or overt role has been attributed to the revisionists in the alleged incident so as to prima facie constitute offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. or under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST Act, 1989. It is argued that except for a stray reference by P.W.3, the statements are omnibus and do not disclose any concrete allegation of criminal assault, intentional insult, intimidation or criminal intimidation against the revisionists, much less any allegation that the complainant or victim was targeted on account of caste, in a place within public view, as is an essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act. It is further submitted that the co-accused who were charge-sheeted, namely, Rakshpal Singh, Gurmeet, Harjinder and Gurvinder Singh @ Ginder, and against whom the trial proceeded to conclusion, have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2024 in the same Special Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2017, thereby significantly eroding the substratum of the prosecution case itself. Learned counsel also submits that, at the time of the alleged occurrence, the revisionists were school-going students and the incident, at its highest, pertains to teasing which is of a trivial nature, not disclosing the necessary mens rea or gravity warranting invocation of the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. The scope and ambit of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the 2025:UHC:11031 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary and discretionary power which is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where strong and cogent evidence comes on record indicating the involvement of a person not arraigned as an accused, and that the degree of satisfaction required is higher than that necessary for framing of charge, though short of the standard of proof necessary for conviction. The Court has further clarified that although statements in examination-in-chief recorded during trial may constitute “evidence” for the purpose of Section 319, such evidence must be of such a nature that it gives rise to more than a mere likelihood or suspicion and reasonably points towards the complicity of the proposed accused, and that materials collected during investigation can at best be used only for corroboration and not as an independent basis for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 6. In the present case, once the charge-sheeted accused, who were named in the F.I.R. and against whom the entire prosecution case was originally directed, stand acquitted after full-fledged trial, the very foundation of the allegations becomes fragile, and in the absence of clear, consistent and cogent evidence against the revisionists, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. 7. In so far as the alleged offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST 2025:UHC:11031 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that every insult or intimidation to a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not ipso facto attract the rigours of Section 3(1)(x) unless such insult or intimidation is directed at the victim solely on account of his/ her caste status and is perpetrated in any place within “public view”. It has been emphasized that in the absence of pleadings and proof that the alleged abusive or derogatory words were uttered in a place within public view and that the victim was targeted because of caste, the basic ingredients of the offence are not made out and prosecution under Section 3(1)(x) cannot be sustained. In the case at hand, from the record placed before this Court, it is evident that the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 do not attribute any caste-related slur or insult to the revisionists in a place within public view, nor do they specifically allege that the revisionists acted with the intention to humiliate or intimidate the victim on the ground that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste; hence, the statutory ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act are ex facie lacking as against the revisionists. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence relied upon by the learned trial Court, even if taken at its face value and in its entirety, does not attain the requisite level of strength and cogency to justify summoning the revisionists. The fact that the co-accused who were sent up for trial have already been acquitted in the main trial further persuades this Court to hold that continuation of the proceedings 2025:UHC:11031 against the revisionists, who were school-going at the time of the alleged minor altercation, would be oppressive and would amount to sheer harassment, rather than advancement of the cause of justice. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion on facts and law, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2017, summoning the present revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is unsustainable in law and on facts, having been passed in disregard of the settled parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed, the impugned summoning order dated 14.02.2020 is hereby quashed and all further proceedings against the revisionists in Special Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2017 shall stand dropped. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted forthwith to the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, for information and necessary compliance. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 11.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.12.12 17:01:33 +05'30'