HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7553 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Sharad Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the summoning order dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Etawah of Complaint Case No.804 of 2023 (Ranjeet Singh vs. Sushil Kumar Kushwaha) under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, P.S.- Bakewar, District- Etawah. 3. In the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it has been stated that the accused-appellant, Sushil Kumar Kushwaha, who was working as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Gudera, had pressurized and intimidated the complainant, Ranjit Singh, to withdraw the RTI application filed by him. It is further alleged that the accused-appellant used casteist slurs against the complainant and also caused injuries to him. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned summoning order dated 17.01.2024 is unsustainable, having been passed mechanically without proper consideration of the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the prosecution arose out of a dispute concerning the complainant's RTI application and is actuated by mala fide intention to pressurise and harass the appellant. The alleged incident dated 26.04.2023 is rendered Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sharad Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mukesh Kumar Pandey Sushil Kumar Kushwaha .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) highly improbable by the contemporaneous certificate of the Gram Pradhan showing that the appellant was performing official duties elsewhere till 5:30 p.m. It is further submitted that there is no medical or other independent evidence supporting the allegation of assault and that no specific averment satisfies the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, particularly the requirement of intentional caste-based humiliation in public view. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the mandatory provision of Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not been duly complied with in the present case, wherein prior sanction of the competent authority is required to initiate proceedings against the public servant, as the accused-appellant was working as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The allegations are vague and unsupported by independent material, hence, no prima facie case is made out. Continuation of the proceedings would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing of the impugned summoning order and consequential proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that the complainant, being a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was subjected to caste-based abuse, assault and criminal intimidation by the appellant when he refused to withdraw his RTI application. The complainant's version is supported by the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., which disclose sufficient prima facie material for summoning the appellant. It is contended that the defence of the appellant, including the alleged official- duty certificate and the plea of false implication, relates to matters of evidence which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of summoning. The learned Trial Court, upon considering the complaint and the supporting statements, rightly found sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant. Accordingly, no interference is warranted at this stage and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Admittedly, no injury report has been clearly submitted in this case. Further, either in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, no specific averment has been stated anywhere as to what kind of injury was sustained by the complainant in the present case. Furthermore, there is no CRLA No. 7553 of 2026 2 reliable material either in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint, or in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., to show that the accused-appellant had used casteist slurs against the complainant in order to insult or humiliate him on the sole ground that he belongs to the SC/ST category. It is also an admitted fact that the place of occurrence has not been clearly mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., though the place of occurrence has been mentioned in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. However, the said application does not corroborate with the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with regard to the place of occurrence. 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 CRLA No. 7553 of 2026 3 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 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 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 CRLA No. 7553 of 2026 4 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. Having considered the rival submissions, the material brought on record, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the material collected during investigation do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. No injury report has been clearly submitted in this case. Further, either in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, no specific averment has been stated anywhere as to what kind of injury was sustained by the complainant in the present case. In the absence of any specific allegation of intentional caste-based insult or humiliation attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the impugned charge-sheet and the summoning order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. Consequently, the summoning order dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Etawah of Complaint Case No.804 of 2023 (Ranjeet Singh vs. Sushil Kumar Kushwaha) under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, P.S.- Bakewar, District- Etawah, is hereby set aside. CRLA No. 7553 of 2026 5 12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 13. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge, Etawah by e- mail/FAX within 48 hours. September 14, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 7553 of 2026 6 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad