HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1875 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Case called out in the revised call. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The entire record has been perused. 2. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to quash the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Court (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 226 of 2021 (State vs. Sunita Singh and another). By the said order, the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants was partly rejected, and the appellants were not discharged from the offences under Sections 417, 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No. 266 of 2019, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act is made out. It is further submitted that a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 417, 420, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act, and cognizance was taken accordingly. Thereafter, the appellants filed a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was partly allowed to the extent of Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act, but was rejected with respect to Sections 417, 420 IPC and Section 4. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Kumar Singh, Srijan Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sunita Singh And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 417, 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. The informant had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the appellants at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha. Subsequently, the value of the land had increased, the informant lodged the present FIR on false and fabricated grounds to evade execution of the sale deed. It is also argued that for invoking Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act, the alleged offence must be one specified in the Schedule to the Act. Since Sections 417 and 420 IPC are not included in the Schedule, the said provision is not attracted. 5. Learned A.G.A., while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, fairly conceded that Sections 417 and 420 IPC are not included in the Schedule of the SC/ST Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is appropriate to reproduce Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act: "commits any offence specified in the Schedule 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 such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine." 7. A perusal of Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act makes it clear that it is applicable only when the offence alleged is specified in the Schedule. In the present case, since the trial court has already discharged the appellants under Section 506 IPC, and Sections 417 and 420 IPC are not included in the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3(2)(5a) are not attracted. 8. As regards Sections 417 and 420 IPC, a perusal of the FIR reveals that an agreement to sell was allegedly executed at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha to evade stamp duty, whereas the informant, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., claimed that the actual agreed rate was Rs. 74,00,000/- per bigha. It is further alleged that at the time of execution of the registered agreement, the appellants and their 9. CRLA No. 1875 of 2026 2 counsel initially prepared documents reflecting the higher rate but subsequently got another agreement executed mentioning the value of land of Rs. 10,000,00/- per bigha, without the knowledge of the informant. At the stage of framing of charge, it is settled law that if there is sufficient material on record giving rise to a strong suspicion against the accused, the charge can be framed. In Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh [(2009) ACC 65 (399) (SC)] has held that at the stage of taking cognizance or considering a protest petition, the court is only required to examine whether the material available on record gives rise to a strong suspicion against the accused. If such strong suspicion exists, the court is justified in proceeding further. It is not permissible at this stage to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to evaluate the defence version, as those are matters to be considered during trial.. 10. From a perusal of the FIR, the statement of the informant, and the earlier agreement is appended at page nos. 143 to 147 of the paper book, wherein the value of the land is shown as Rs. 74,00,000/- per bigha, this Court finds that there is sufficient material to proceed against the appellants under Sections 417 and 420 IPC. 11. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the trial court is set aside to the extent it relates to Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act. However, the order is affirmed with respect to Sections 417 and 420 IPC. 12. May 4, 2026 Akbar CRLA No. 1875 of 2026 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad