HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8130 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 06.06.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in S.S.T No.182 of 2026 arising out of Complaint Case No.95 of 2024 (Registration No.119 of 2024) under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Chandwak, District- Jaunpur. He further prays to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case. 3. From the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is evident that the accused persons, namely Amrita, Kajal, Hirawati, Madhu and Vijay, have been specifically named, with the allegation that they, armed with lathi and danda, reached Arazi No. 153/352 with an intention to take illegal possession and caused injuries to the injured persons. The complaint also contains allegations regarding the use of casteist slurs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned summoning order dated 06.06.2026 has been passed without proper consideration of the material available on record and without recording adequate reasons. It is submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially with regard to property and possession, and a cross-case/NCR Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Kumar Shukla, Kuldeep Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Shashank Tripathi Amrita And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) dated 30.03.2024 was lodged by appellant no. 3 against the complainant side concerning the same occurrence. The documentary evidence, including the medical reports, civil proceedings and NCR, has not been properly appreciated. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions between the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The injuries are stated to be minor and the allegations regarding caste-related abuses are also disputed. The appellants have no criminal history and have been falsely implicated in the complaint case arising out of the property dispute. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned summoning order suffers from non- application of judicial mind and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the complainant has specifically alleged that on 30.03.2024 the appellants, armed with sticks and rods, forcibly attempted to interfere with her property and assaulted the complainant, her daughter and daughter-in-law, besides extending threats and using caste-related abuses. It is submitted that the allegations are supported by the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the medical examination of the injured persons. The learned court, after considering the complaint, the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the material available on record, found sufficient ground to summon the appellants for the offences in question. The existence of a property dispute or a cross-case does not, by itself, negate the criminal allegations, particularly when specific allegations of assault, intimidation and caste-based abuse have been made. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned summoning order is based on the material on record and calls for no interference. 6. In the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the role and involvement of the accused persons in causing injuries have been alleged, which finds corroboration from the injury reports available on record. However, the injury reports dated 02.04.2024, in respect of the alleged incident dated 30.03.2024, disclose only simple injuries. It is also an admitted position that NCR No. 30 of 2024 under Sections 323 and 504 IPC was lodged by the appellant side in relation to the same occurrence. Further, a civil suit, being Case No. 307 of 2024, was instituted by CRLA No. 8130 of 2026 2 Bhullan, stated to be the father of appellant no. 4, against Manilal, who, as stated by learned counsel for the appellants, is the husband of the O.P. No.2. Thus, the existence of a civil dispute between the parties is not in dispute. It is also noteworthy in respect of the land in dispute, Arazi No. 128 is mentioned in the said civil suit, whereas Arazi No. 153 has been mentioned in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. So far as the offences under the SC/ST Act are concerned, there is no specific and distinct averment in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. indicating the particular casteist words allegedly used by the appellants or showing that such words were uttered with the intention to insult or humiliate the complainant on the ground of her belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. 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 CRLA No. 8130 of 2026 3 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 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 CRLA No. 8130 of 2026 4 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 which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status." 10. 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)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(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 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). 11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered CRLA No. 8130 of 2026 5 opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(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. 12. Consequently, the summoning order dated 06.06.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in S.S.T No.182 of 2026 arising out of Complaint Case No.95 of 2024 (Registration No.119 of 2024) under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Chandwak, District- Jaunpur, is modified to the extent that the appellants stand discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 13. However, the sufficient material is available on record to proceed against the appellants under the provisions of IPC. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC 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. 14. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. 15. If the appellants are not on bail, they 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 CRLA No. 8130 of 2026 6 coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence of the appellants. 18. 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. 8130 of 2026 7 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad