HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2175 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for O.P. 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 summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria as well as the entire proceedings in S.S.T. No.388 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Kushwaha and others) arising out of Case Crime No.339 of 2022 under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Deoria. He further prays to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case. 3. The accused-appellant, Manorama Kushwaha, is named in the FIR along with three other accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, Shiv Mangal Gond and Sumitra Devi. The accused-appellant Manorama Kushwaha is the legally wedded wife of co-accused Ashok Kumar Kushwaha. It has specifically been alleged in the FIR that the complainant/victim had paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- on the false promise made by co-accused Ashok Kumar Kushwaha regarding the sale of the disputed plot bearing Arazi No. 398. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the wife of co-accused Ashok Kumar Kushwaha and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The dispute essentially relates to the proposed sale of land between the informant and co-accused Shiv Mangal Gond, in which Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Harendra Pal, Prashant Pratap Rao, Rajiv Chowdhury Manorama Kushwaha .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the appellant had no role. It is submitted that the entire sale consideration was returned to the informant through a bank transaction and, therefore, the allegation of misappropriation or cheating is not substantiated against the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is a housewife and there is no specific overt act attributed to her. The Investigating Officer, without proper investigation, submitted the charge-sheet, and the learned Trial Court mechanically took cognizance and summoned the appellant without properly examining the material on record. Hence, the summoning order dated 06.09.2022 and consequential proceedings deserve to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. submit that the F.I.R. was lodged pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the allegations disclose commission of the offences under Sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and other accused persons, upon which cognizance was taken and the appellant was summoned. The defence taken by the appellant regarding the nature of the land transaction and return of money involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated at this stage. Therefore, the challenge to the summoning order is liable to be considered in light of the material collected during investigation. 6. It has been specifically stated in the FIR that the Rs.8,50,000/- was deposited in Account No. 31710110027882 maintained with UCO Bank. As per the instructions received on behalf of the learned A.G.A., the aforesaid bank account is in the name of the accused-appellant Manorama Kushwaha, who is the legally wedded wife of co-accused Ashok Kumar Kushwaha. From a perusal of the case diary and the material available on record, it prima facie appears that the accused-appellant Manorama Kushwaha was the beneficiary of the aforesaid transaction. 7. Cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is extracted below to ready reference: CRLA No. 2175 of 2025 2 "3. Punishments for offence of atrocities.-........ (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,-.......... "(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;" 8. In the present case, the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences with which the accused-appellant has been charged is less than ten years. Furthermore, from a perusal of the FIR itself, it appears that the dispute essentially arises out of a financial transaction concerning the sale of the disputed property and has the complexion of a civil dispute between the parties. There is also no reliable material on record, at this stage, to establish that the alleged occurrence took place solely on account of the victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category. 9. 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 Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the material collected during investigation, 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 succeeds in part. 11. Consequently, the summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria in S.S.T. No.388 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Kushwaha and others) arising out of Case Crime CRLA No. 2175 of 2025 3 No.339 of 2022 under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Deoria, is modified to the extent that the appellant stands discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 12. 12. However, sufficient material is available on record to proceed against the appellant under the provisions of IPC. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant under the provisions of Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC 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. 13. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. 14. The appellant is directed to appear before the court concerned and move bail application, within two weeks from today. It is made clear that no application seeking extension of the aforesaid period shall be entertained by this court. 15. In case, the appellant moves bail application before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court expeditiously and preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court regarding surrender and bail. 16. In case, the appellant fails to appear before the court concerned within the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence of the appellant. 17. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge, Deoria within a week. October 1, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 2175 of 2025 4 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad