HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2074 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. None appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2. 2. Heard Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 26.08.2024 and set aside the summoning order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in SST No.183 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abhay Raj and others) arising out of Case Crime No.309 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Mungra Badshahpur, District- Jaunpur. 4. In the First Information Report lodged by the complainant, Vijay Kumar, it has been alleged that the accused-appellants caused injuries to the injured person with hard and blunt objects, namely lathi and danda, and further used the expression “Chamar" and "Siyar”. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned criminal proceedings arise out of a purely civil dispute relating to possession and demarcation of adjoining parcels of land. There is an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR, and the alleged victim was medically examined only on 19.08.2024, wherein only a simple injury on the left forearm was found, which could also have been caused by a fall. It is Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rakesh Chandra Pathak, Ramanuj Tiwari Abhay Raj And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) further submitted that the parties are already litigating before the civil/revenue authorities regarding the disputed land and a status quo order has also been passed. The applicants are in possession of their respective land, as reflected from the site plan and revenue proceedings. It is therefore argued that the criminal case has been initiated to exert pressure in the pending civil dispute and that no offence under the alleged provisions of the B.N.S. or the SC/ST Act is made out. Accordingly, the appellants pray that the entire criminal proceedings, including the charge- sheet, cognizance/summoning order and consequential proceedings, be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the FIR discloses specific allegations against the accused-appellants regarding the occurrence in which the victim and other persons were allegedly assaulted and caste- based abusive words were used. The investigating officer, after investigation, recorded the statements of the informant, victim and other prosecution witnesses under Section 180 B.N.S.S., collected the medical evidence and prepared the site plan, and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under the relevant provisions of the B.N.S. and the SC/ST Act. The learned Special Judge has also taken cognizance on 13.05.2025. It is submitted that the existence of a civil dispute between the parties does not, by itself, efface the criminal allegations or bar criminal proceedings where the complaint discloses cognizable offences. The disputed questions regarding possession, the correctness of the rival claims and the evidentiary value of the prosecution material are matters to be considered by the trial court and do not warrant quashing of the proceedings at this stage. 7. Admittedly, Civil Suit No. 1056 of 2004 is pending between the parties, in which a stay order has been passed in favour of the appellant Jai Karan. The said civil suit was instituted by Jai Karan against Vijay Kumar and ten other persons. It is also admitted that Vijay Kumar is the complainant in the present case and Jai Karan is the father of appellant nos. 1 and 2. So far as the allegation of causing injuries is concerned, medical evidence is available on record which corroborates the statement of the injured person. However, from the material available on record, it appears that the incident occurred in the backdrop of the existing land CRLA No. 2074 of 2026 2 dispute between the parties. There is no reliable material in the FIR or in the statements of the complainant and the victim to indicate that the alleged casteist expression was used with the intention to insult or humiliate the complainant or the victim on the ground of their belonging to the SC/ST category. Thus, the essential ingredient of intentional insult or humiliation on the ground of caste is not prima facie established from the material placed on record. 8. 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. 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 of CRLA No. 2074 of 2026 3 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 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 CRLA No. 2074 of 2026 4 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." 11. In Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, AIR 2008 SC 251, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution should not be permitted to be used as an instrument of harassment, oppression or private vendetta. Where criminal proceedings are initiated with an ulterior motive to exert pressure or to settle personal scores arising out of a dispute predominantly civil in nature, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings 12. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 647, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue where they are instituted merely to harass the accused or to exert pressure in a civil dispute relating to property. The Court held that giving a criminal colour to a dispute which is essentially civil in nature amounts to an abuse of the process of law. At the same time, the Court clarified that the existence of a civil dispute by itself is not a ground for quashing criminal proceedings if the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. 13. 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 Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The material collected during inquiry does not indicate that the alleged words or conduct were actuated by the caste CRLA No. 2074 of 2026 5 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 (supra) further reaffirmed in Hitesh Verma & Shajan Skaria (supra). 14. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the material collected during investigation, 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. 15. Consequently, the chargesheet dated 26.08.2024 and the summoning order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in SST No.183 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Abhay Raj and others) arising out of Case Crime No.309 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Mungra Badshahpur, District- Jaunpur, is modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 16. However, sufficient material is available on record to proceed against the appellants under the provisions of BNS. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS 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. 17. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. 18. The appellants are directed to appear before the court concerned and move bail application, within two weeks from today. It is made clear that no application seeking extension of the aforesaid period shall be entertained by this court. CRLA No. 2074 of 2026 6 19. In case, the appellants move bail application before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court expeditiously and preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court regarding surrender and bail. 20. In case, the appellants fail to appear before the court concerned within the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence of the appellants. 21. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge, Jaunpur within four days. September 18, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 2074 of 2026 7 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad