HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7788 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. As per office report, notice has been duly served upon opposite party no.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellant to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba in Complaint Case No. 93 of 2024, (Smt. Sampat Vs. Yogendra Singh Rajput), under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, P.S. Kulpahad, District Mahoba. 4. Tersely, as per prosecution case, the complainant, a resident of Village Magraul Kalan, District Mahoba, alleged that on 31.05.2024, accused Yogendra Singh Rajput, son of Jagdish Rajput, forcibly snatched her bag while abusing her. The bag allegedly contained Aadhaar cards of her children, educational documents and three pairs of old silver toe rings. The said articles were subsequently returned by the police. It is further alleged that, being aggrieved by the complainant's complaint to the police, on 03.06.2024 at about 6:00 P.M., the accused entered the complainant's house, abused and threatened her, alleging that her complaint had caused him a loss of Rs10,000/-. He allegedly threatened to kill her and stated that he would disfigure her face and cause further harm to her husband. Thereafter, he allegedly assaulted the complainant and tore her clothes while attempting to Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Yogendra Singh Rajput .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) commit a wrongful act. 5. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C.& S.T. Act), Mahoba 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. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been wrongly summoned for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the court below has committed an error in summoning the appellant for the alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the basic ingredients of the said offences are not disclosed from the allegations contained in the complaint. It is contended that the alleged occurrence took place inside the house of the complainant and, therefore, the requirement of the occurrence having taken place at a place within "public view" is not satisfied. It is further submitted that the allegations are omnibus in nature and that the dispute between the parties had arisen in the backdrop of the earlier incident concerning the alleged taking away of the complainant's bag, which was subsequently resolved by way of compromise. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that, at the stage of summoning, the court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material available on record. It is contended that the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. support the allegations made in the complaint and disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the allegations regarding assault and use of caste-related abusive words cannot be discarded merely on the ground that no medical report has been filed, particularly with regard to the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. It is, accordingly, submitted that the summoning order does not call for interference at this stage. 8. Admittedly, the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as a complaint case. During the course of inquiry, on the basis of the CRLA No. 7788 of 2026 2 statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant was summoned by the court concerned. As per the complaint, the incident in question is alleged to have occurred on 31.05.2024. It is alleged that, on the said date, the accused- appellant, Yogendra Singh, who resides in the same village as the complainant, took away her bag containing the Aadhaar cards of her children, educational certificates and silver toe rings. The said articles were subsequently returned by the police pursuant to a compromise between the parties. It is further alleged that, being aggrieved by the said compromise, the appellant, on 03.06.2024 at about 6:00 P.M., entered the house of the complainant and assaulted her, causing injuries. So far as the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, production of a medical report is not an indispensable requirement in each and every case, particularly at the stage of summoning, where the court is required to examine whether prima facie material exists on record. However, insofar as the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned, the complaint itself alleges that the appellant entered the house of the complainant and used caste-related abusive words. Thus, according to the allegations contained in the complaint, the occurrence took place inside the house of the complainant and not at a place within 'public view'. Consequently, the essential ingredient relating to the commission of the alleged offence at a place within public view is not prima facie made out from the allegations contained in the complaint. Furthermore no specific or distinct word relating to castiest slur has been mentioned either in the complaint or in the statement of the complaint/injured that the appellant has used casteist slur with intention or knowledge in order to insult or humiliate on the sole ground that victim belongs S.C. & S.T. category. For the purpose of summoning the accused persons and initiate proceedings against them under the S.C./S.T. Act, it requires primarily that "casteist slur" should be used with intention or knowledge in order to insult or humiliate on the 'sole basis' that the victim/the complainant belongs to S.C. & S.T. category. Accordingly, so far as the offences under the I.P.C. are concerned, sufficient prima facie material is available on record to sustain the summoning order. However, insofar as the offences under the S.C. & S.T. Act are concerned, the requisite ingredient of the occurrence having taken place in a place within public view is not prima facie established. 9. In the case of Swaran singh Vs State (2008)8SCC 435 the Hon'ble Apex CRLA No. 7788 of 2026 3 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. 10. 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). 11. 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 CRLA No. 7788 of 2026 4 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 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 CRLA No. 7788 of 2026 5 which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status." 12. 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)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) 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). 13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) 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. 14. The summoning order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba in Complaint Case No. 93 of 2024, (Smt. Sampat Vs. Yogendra Singh Rajput), under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, P.S. Kulpahad, District Mahoba, is modified to the extent that the appellant Yogendra Singh Rajput stands discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(I)of the SC/ST Act. 15. Nevertheless, since a prima facie case is made out for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. the prosecution in CRLA No. 7788 of 2026 6 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. 16. 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 18, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 7788 of 2026 7 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad