HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1215 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal filed under Section 14 (A)(1) of S.C. & S.T Act to quash the impugned summoning order dated 07.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Complaint No. 99 of 2024, (Teggan Vs. Raju and Others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar. 3. Tersely, as per the prosecution case, the complainant/opposite party no.2 alleges that on 22.02.2024 at about 8:00 p.m., while his minor daughters were returning after attending nature's call, accused appellant no.1 Raju Yadav allegedly attempted to commit rape upon one of them and misbehaved with the other. On their raising alarm, the accused appellant no.1 Raju, along with other accused appellants Ramu, Puttilal, Manoj, Santosh, Raksha Ram and Barkha, allegedly assaulted the complainant and his family members with sticks, rods and bricks, causing injuries to them. It is further alleged that the accused appellants abused the complainant in caste-related terms and entered his house and assaulted the family members. 4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order dated 07.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act. Although caste-related Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Raj Kiran Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Surendra Mohan Mishra Raju And 5 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) abuse was alleged, neither the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. nor the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. specified the actual casteist words allegedly used. There was no allegation that the accused used such words with the intention to humiliate or insult the complainant on account of his belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, which is a necessary ingredient of the relevant offence under the SC/ST Act. The existence of a cross-case lodged by accused Rajkumar against the complainant Teggan and others showed that the incident was a mutual dispute rather than an offence motivated by caste. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the complaint specifically alleged that Raju misbehaved with and outraged the modesty of the complainant's daughter, and that when the complainant objected, the family members of Raju assaulted the complainant's wife and daughters. The complainant consistently reiterated these allegations in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It was also alleged that the accused persons used caste-related derogatory words against the complainant, thereby attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act. At the stage of taking cognizance/framing a prima facie case, the court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or determine whether the allegations will ultimately result in conviction. The allegations regarding caste-based abuse, assault and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient, according to the complainant, to warrant continuation of the proceedings against the accused appellants. 7. In the complaint, seven accused persons, namely Raju, Ramu, Puttilal, Manoj, Santosh, Raksha Ram and Barkha were named. The allegation was that accused appellant no.1 Raju had misbehaved with and outraged the modesty of the complainant's daughter. When the complainant objected to such conduct, the family members of Raju allegedly assaulted the complainant's wife and daughters and used Caste related derogatory words against him. In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant reiterated the allegation against Raju and alleged that family members of Raju caused injuries to his family members and used casteist remarks. However, neither the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been treated as a complaint, nor the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. disclosed any specific casteist slur or allegation that such words were used with the intention to humiliate or insult the complainant on account of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. It was also admitted that a cross-case had been registered by accused Rajkumar against the complainant Teggan and others and that both sides had sustained injuries. Thus, the existence of a cross-case was an admitted fact. So far as the CRLA No. 1215 of 2026 2 offences under the IPC are concerned, a prima facie case was made out against the accused-appellants. However, the necessary ingredients for the offence under the SC/ST Act were not prima facie established. 8. In the case of Swaran singh Vs State (2008)8SCC 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. 9. 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 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 Section 3(1) (r). 10. 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 CRLA No. 1215 of 2026 3 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 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 CRLA No. 1215 of 2026 4 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." 11. 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 Sections 3(1)(Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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 further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma and Shajan Skaria (supra). 12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the material collected during investigation/inquiry, 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 and is allowed partly. 13. The impugned summoning order dated 07.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Complaint No. 99 of 2024, (Teggan Vs. Raju and Others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar is modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act. 14. Nevertheless, since a prima facie case is made out for the offences CRLA No. 1215 of 2026 5 punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC, the prosecution in respect thereof 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. 15. 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 48 hours. September 9, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 1215 of 2026 6 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad