HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8075 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. As per office report dated 23.09.2026, notice has been personally served upon O.P. No.2. 2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2. 3. Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State. 4. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 25.05.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Session Case No.895 of 2026 (State of U.P. vs. Wadi @ Manish and others) arising out of Case Crime No.234 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 131, 352, 351(2) and 324(2) BNS 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.- Kirawali, District- Agra. He further prays to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case. 5. In the first information report, the accused persons, namely Kanhaiyalal Sharma, Wadi alias Manish, Samrat, Krishmohan alias Kallu and two to three other unknown persons, have been named. The allegation contained in the FIR is that the complainant/victim, who is posted as Assistant Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gaurav Dwivedi, Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Krishna Mohan @ Krish Upadhyaya @ Kullu And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Credit Manager in Bajaj Finance Limited at Kirawali, District Agra, was present in the office when accused Kanhaiyalal Sharma, along with his associates, reached there, caused injuries to him and other persons and also used casteist slurs against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations made in the FIR are wholly false and concocted. It is submitted that the injured Amit Singh was medically examined on 23.08.2025 and the injuries found upon him were simple in nature. No specific role has been assigned to the appellants for causing the alleged injuries. It is further submitted that although several persons were present at the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet only against the appellants. The appellants have no previous criminal history and the present appeal is the first appeal filed by them against the summoning order dated 25.05.2026. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the summoning order is not justified and is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned A.G.A. submits that the appellants have been duly named in the FIR and specific allegations have been made against them regarding the incident. It is submitted that after investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material against the appellants and accordingly submitted charge-sheet No. 214 of 2025, on which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 25.05.2026. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra, has rightly summoned the appellants to face trial. The medical examination and subsequent X-ray of the injured are part of the record, and the disputed questions regarding the truthfulness of the allegations, the role of the appellants and the evidentiary value of the material cannot appropriately be adjudicated at this stage. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned summoning order does not call for interference. 8. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was initiated and, thereafter, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet, upon which cognizance was taken against the accused-appellants. It is an admitted position, both from the FIR and the statements of the injured person, that the alleged incident CRLA No. 8075 of 2026 2 took place inside the office building of Bajaj Finance Limited and, therefore, was not within public view. There is also no reliable material in the FIR or in the statement of the injured person to establish that the alleged casteist slurs were uttered with the intention to insult or humiliate the victim/complainant on the sole ground of his belonging to the SC/ST category. At the same time, it is not disputed that the injured persons sustained injuries, and the injury report available on record corroborates the statements of the injured persons recorded during the course of investigation. 9. 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. 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 CRLA No. 8075 of 2026 3 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). 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 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 CRLA No. 8075 of 2026 4 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." 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)(r), 3(1)(s) and 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 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). 13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the material collected during investigation, and the CRLA No. 8075 of 2026 5 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. 14. Consequently, the summoning order dated 25.05.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Session Case No.895 of 2026 (State of U.P. vs. Wadi @ Manish and others) arising out of Case Crime No.234 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 131, 352, 351(2) and 324(2) BNS 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.- Kirawali, District- Agra, 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. 15. 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), 131, 352, 351(2) and 324(2) 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. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants states that they are not enlarged on bail. Therefore, 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 CRLA No. 8075 of 2026 6 of the appellants. 20. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge, Agra within 48 hours. September 24, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 8075 of 2026 7 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad