Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34306 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2117 of 2025 Applicant :- Chitrkesh Bhadauria Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This Court on 22.01.2025 required the learned A.G.A. to serve notice upon O.P. No.2. An affidavit of compliance dated 10.02.2025 has been filed mentioning that service has been effected upon O.P. No.2 on 08.02.2025. 3. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2. 4. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Etawah and further proceeding thereof in a Sessions Trial No. 667 of 2024 "State Vs Chitrakesh Bhadauria" under Section 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)s and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act arising out of the case crime 43 of 2024 Police Station- Ekdil, District- Etawah as well as charge sheet dated 12.03.2024 submitted by the investigating officer in case crime 43 of 2024 Police Station- Ekadil, District- Etawah under Section 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)s and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR stood lodged on 15.02.2024 at 11:51 hours, FIR No.0043 under Sections 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)gha of the SC/ST Act against the applicant with an allegation that the O.P. No.2 happens to be a mason/labour, who was entrusted with the work of raising construction of the house of the applicant. The construction had been raised till the height of roof of the house, however, at the time of laying down the linter the applicant is alleged to have directed the O.P. No.2 to raise the height to which the O.P. No.2 demanded certain amount and when the applicant showed his reluctance, hurled caste-based abused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR does not disclose the date and time of the commission of the offence, as even in the statements of the witnesses Rajesh Kumar, Bablue, Moorat Lal and Ravi, though they have alleged that caste-based abuses were hurled, but nothing is there regarding date and time of commission of the said offence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is the concocted story being sought to be cooked up without any basis, as even otherwise, it is also not known to the applicant that the O.P. No.2 belongs to SC/ST category and even if there had been scolding at the end of the applicant, then too that cannot inflict any criminality. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that it does not dispute the fact that the narration had been made in the FIR as well as in the statements of the independent witnesses, no date and time of commission of offence is forthcoming. 7. Having heard the arguments made across the Bar, I am of the opinion that the only crucial question which arises before this Court at this stage in the present proceeding is whether the allegation contained in the FIR inflicted any criminality or not. Taking into account the allegations to its face value, it is more than evident that the use of caste-based abuses were put into motion (hurling), but there is no date or time of commission of the offence. Further the independent witnesses also have not given any date or time. Apart from the same what is relevant is the fact that even otherwise the accused could know about the caste of the victim, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that he was aware of the caste of the O.P. No.2, then too, he hurled abuses particularly when the status of the O.P. No.2 is of a labour and it is a matter of common knowledge that the labours are not to disclose their identity and caste while doing a job, which is of a daily wager and temporary, which commences in the morning and ends in the evening. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 18 SCC 763 followed by Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 9 SCR 593 has held that the offences under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is the member of Scheduled Caste, unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the aforesaid ingredients are lacking. 9. Having heard each and every aspect of the matter, and the nature of allegations contained therein, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to be granted relief. 10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The summoning order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Etawah and further proceeding thereof in a Sessions Trial No. 667 of 2024 "State Vs Chitrakesh Bhadauria" under Section 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)s and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act arising out of the case crime 43 of 2024 Police Station- Ekdil, District- Etawah as well as charge sheet dated 12.03.2024 submitted by the investigating officer in case crime 43 of 2024 Police Station- Ekadil, District- Etawah under Section 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)s and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, stand quashed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad