HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 473 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ankit Tiwari, 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 quash the chargesheet no.571 of 2024 dated 17.8.2024 and cognizance order dated 3.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj as well as quash the entire proceedings of Session Case No.1033 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Ramdatt Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.575 of 2024 under Sections 115, 352, 351(2), 127(2) BNS and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kotwali Kannauj, District- Kannauj. He further prays to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case. 3. As per the first information report, the allegation against the accused- appellant, Ramdatt Yadav, is that when the complainant/informant demanded his wages from the accused-appellant, he detained the informant/victim inside a room and caused injuries to him. Furthermore the accused-appellant also subjected the complainant to electric current. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of two days. Though injuries are mentioned in the medical report of Ram Ashrey, there is no reliable material connecting the said injuries with the alleged incident, whereas, in respect of Rama Kant, admittedly no visible injury was found and there was only a complaint of pain. The allegation that the informant/victim was subjected to electric Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Kamala Shanker Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ramdatt Yadav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) current is also not corroborated by any specific medical finding. Further, there is no reliable material to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, as the alleged incident admittedly took place inside a room and not at a place within public view. Thus, the prosecution material, considered as a whole, does not disclose sufficient grounds for summoning the appellant. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order be set aside. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the delay of two days in lodging the FIR is not, by itself, sufficient to discard the prosecution case, particularly when the FIR, the statements of the informant/victim, injured and independent witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, the medical examination reports, and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the appellant. The injuries found on Ram Ashrey provide prima facie corroboration to the allegation of assault, while the absence of visible injury on Rama Kant and the medical evidence regarding electric current are matters of appreciation of evidence to be considered during trial. The Investigating Officer, upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence, rightly submitted the charge-sheet, and the learned Special Judge rightly took cognizance of the offences. At the stage of cognizance, meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible, and the defence raised by the appellant involves disputed questions of fact which are to be examined during trial. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the statements of the complainant and injured witnesses, specific and distinct roles have been attributed to the accused-appellant in causing injuries, which are prima facie corroborated by the medical evidence available on record. The statement of the doctor is also on record. From a perusal of the medical report, it appears that injured Ram Ashrey sustained an abrasion and stitched wounds, whereas, in the case of the other injured, Rama Kant, there was only a complaint of pain and no visible injury was found. So far as the offences under the relevant provisions of the BNS, in respect of which cognizance has been taken, are concerned, a prima facie case is made out against the accused-appellant. However, with regard to the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, it is admitted that the CRLA No. 473 of 2025 2 alleged incident took place inside a room. For summoning an accused under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, it is necessary that the alleged caste-related insult or derogatory words were uttered with the intention of insulting or humiliating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view. From the statements of the complainant/victim and injured witnesses, as well as the other material available on record, it appears that the alleged incident took place inside the house. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reliable material available on record to take cognizance of or summon the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. 7. In the case of Swaran Singh vs State (2008) 8 SCC 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. 8. 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 CRLA No. 473 of 2025 3 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 of Section 3(1)(r). 9. 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 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 CRLA No. 473 of 2025 4 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 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." 10. 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(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The material collected during inquiry does not indicate that the alleged words or conduct were actuated by the caste of the informant or were intended to intentionally insult or humiliate the informant 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 (supra) further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma & Shajan Skaria (supra). 11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered CRLA No. 473 of 2025 5 opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 3(1)(r) 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. 12. The chargesheet dated 17.8.2024 and the cognizance order dated 3.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Session Case No.1033 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Ramdatt Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.575 of 2024 under Sections 115, 352, 351(2), 127(2) BNS and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kotwali Kannauj, District- Kannauj, is modified to the extent that the appellant stands discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. 13. However, the medical evidence available on record reveals that appellant has caused injury to the injured persons. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant under the provisions of Sections 115, 352, 351(2), 127(2) BNS 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. 14. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. 15. If the appellant is not enlarged on bail, he 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. CRLA No. 473 of 2025 6 18. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge concerned within a week. September 30, 2026 Vikas Verma CRLA No. 473 of 2025 7 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad