HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5851 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri N.K. Choudhary, Advocate holding brief of Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2; learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. 1. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants have assailed the legality and validity of the summoning order dated 12.12.2024, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi, while entertaining Case No. 687 of 2024 (State Vs. Arun Mishra & Ors.), has summoned the appellants to face trial under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3)(2), 352 and 117(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali-Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations made against the appellants are based on false and fabricated grounds. The allegation regarding offences under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act is against one Priyanka Paswan, but she has not lodged any FIR or complaint against the present appellants. The FIR was actually lodged by Sulekha Sharma in the garb of Priyanka Paswan to take benefit of Special Act. 3. It is further submitted that there is a dispute between the Oswal Company and the appellants regarding possession of the premises and, subsequently, the appellants obtained a decree in their favour. When 4. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Deepak Kumar Tripathi, G.A. Arun Mishra And 5 Others .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) they started evicting opposite party no. 2 pursuant to the decree obtained from the competent court, opposite party no. 2 lodged the present FIR on false and fabricated grounds. It is next submitted that the offences under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act are not made out, though it is fairly conceded that injuries were sustained by opposite party no. 2. It is next submitted that the entire incident is alleged to have taken place in the premises when, after vacation of the house by one Akhilesh Kannojia, one of the tenants, opposite party no. 2 started resisting the locking of the room. It is also submitted that the offence under the SC/ST Act is attracted only when the accused intentionally humiliates or intimidates a person solely because he/she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. If any dispute arises due to some other issue and some altercation takes place between the parties, then the offence under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act is not made out. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that it is admitted that the dispute between the parties arose due to eviction of the accommodation on the basis of an eviction decree obtained by the appellants. When Akhilesh Kannojia, one of the tenants, vacated the room and opposite party no. 2 tried to lock it, the appellants came on the spot, started using abusive language, and committed maarpeet with opposite party no. 2, due to which the informant/opposite party no. 2 received serious injuries and a fracture was found in her hand. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 could not explain why Priyanka Paswan did not lodge any FIR against the appellants regarding abusive language as well as caste- related remarks allegedly used by the appellants. Counsel for the appellants has also failed to explain who actually addressed caste- related abusive words to Priyanka Paswan. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, has categorically held: 8. “18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a CRLA No. 5851 of 2025 2 member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” The Hon ble Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, laid down the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. It reads thus:- “55. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are: a. Accused person must not be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; b. Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; c. Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate such a person; and d. Accused must do so at any place within public view.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation by the accused is that the person who is subjected to is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In other words, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a member of the community. 13. To put it briefly - first, the fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. Secondly, any insult or intimidation towards 9. CRLA No. 5851 of 2025 3 the complainant must be on the account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. 14. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity, we deem it appropriate to mention that even mere knowledge of the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r). 15. Further, for an offence to be made out under Section 3(1)(s), merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. At the same time, saying caste name would also not constitute an offence. 16. In other words, to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe “by the caste name” in any place within public view. Thus, the allegations must reveal that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste name had been hurled as an abuse." In the present case, even if the entire prosecution version is presumed to be true, the altercation between the parties took place on account of resistance at the time when the appellants were trying to lock the room vacated by Akhilesh Kannojia, and abusive language is alleged to have been used by the appellants, the alleged caste-based abusive remarks were not used by the appellants solely on the ground that opposite party no. 2 belongs to the SC/ST community. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the offences under Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act are not made out. 13. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of the SC/ST Act would, therefore, amount to abuse of the process of law. The summoning order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, insofar as it relates to offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The remaining proceedings relating to offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(3)(2), 352 and 117(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act shall continue against the 14. CRLA No. 5851 of 2025 4 appellants. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. 15. May 14, 2026 Akbar CRLA No. 5851 of 2025 5 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad