HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2973 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Heard Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pradhumn Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire record. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura in S.S.T. No. 868 of 2025 (State vs. Vikram and Others), under Sections 452 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the discharge application filed by the appellants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire prosecution case is false, concocted and has been maliciously instituted on account of previous enmity and land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that prior to institution of the present complaint, co-accused Sachin had lodged an F.I.R. dated 30.05.2024 against the husband and son of opposite party no.2, being Case Crime No.131 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station Mant, District Mathura, in which charge-sheet has also been submitted after investigation. According to learned counsel, the present proceedings have been initiated only as a counter-blast to the aforesaid criminal case with an ulterior motive to harass and pressurize the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted on its face value, no offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. It is argued that the alleged incident is stated to have taken place inside the residential house of the complainant at about 10:30 PM and, therefore, the essential ingredient of insult or intimidation “within public view” is completely absent. It is also contended that neither the complaint nor the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 4. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pintu Kumar Bhartiya, Pradhumn Kumar Pandey Vikram And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Cr.P.C. disclose the exact caste-related abusive words allegedly used or that the alleged insult was intentionally made only on account of the caste of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that there is no averment that the appellants do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and, therefore, the mandatory ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand( 2020) 10 SCC 710 to contend that mere reference to caste is insufficient to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless there is specific intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and submitted that both sides have sustained injuries and the present case is a cross-case. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and the learned court below has rightly rejected the discharge application. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire record including the complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order. 7. From the material available on record, it appears that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred inside the residential house of the complainant during night hours. Prima facie, the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, namely that the alleged insult or intimidation must have taken place “within public view”, does not appear to be satisfied. Further, neither the complaint nor the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclose any specific material to indicate that the alleged caste-related remarks were intentionally made only on account of the caste of the complainant. 8. The learned trial court, while rejecting the discharge application, has failed to properly consider the essential ingredients required for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 9. However, so far as the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 506 I.P.C. are concerned, this Court is of the view that at the stage of discharge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required and the allegations made in the complaint as well as statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclose sufficient grounds for 10. CRLA No. 2973 of 2026 2 proceeding against the appellants for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. 11. The impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura in S.S.T. No. 868 of 2025 (State vs. Vikram and Others) is hereby set aside to the extent it relates to the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and the appellants are discharged from the said offence. 12. However, the proceedings against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 506 I.P.C. shall continue in accordance with law. 13. The trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously with the trial of the remaining offences strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. 14. May 7, 2026 pks CRLA No. 2973 of 2026 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad