HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6552 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellants to quash the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj in Special Case No.600 of 2026, (State vs. Kamlesh Singh Yadav and others), arising out case crime no.0033 of 2024, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) (va) of S.C. & S.T.Act, P.S. Shivkuti, District Prayagraj, as well as chargesheet dated 27.07.2024 and entire proceedings. 3. Tersely, as per prosecution case, appellant no.2, Kamlesh Singh Yadav, was a tenant of the informant, Hansraj Bhartiya, and had fraudulently prepared documents relating to sale of the informant's land. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that Kamlesh Yadav in connivance with his associates, pressurized the informant to sell his house, factory and land and threatened him with dire consequences. In the year 2020, the accused appellants obtained about Rs.10 lakh from the informant on the pretext of the proposed transaction and threatened him with death if he refused to sell the property. It was further alleged that on 24.09.2022, the informant was taken to a railway- side location by the appelants Vijay Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav along with three unknown persons, where he was forcibly confined, assaulted and threatened to pay Rs.5 lakh, claiming that they had kidnapped him. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.4.70 lakh was allegedly collected from the informant through his son. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Byas Kumar Prasad, Mulayam Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shivbaboo Vijay Shankar Yadav And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj 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. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned proceedings arise out of a purely civil dispute relating to land acquisition, compensation and an earlier sale transaction, which has been given a criminal colour by the informant. He further submits that there was an unexplained and substantial delay of more than one year in lodging the FIR. Although the alleged incident took place on 24.09.2022, the FIR was lodged on 06.03.2024, and no satisfactory explanation was furnished for such delay. The unexplained delay, therefore, casts doubt upon the genuineness of the prosecution allegations and the subsequent criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants had purchased the disputed land from the informant and had constructed a residential house thereon, but no registered sale deed was executed. As the informant belongs to the S.C. & S.T. category, therefore, an unregistered sale transaction was entered into between the parties. It is contended that the investigation itself revealed that the acquired land was in possession of the appellants and that compensation had been sanctioned in respect thereof. It is further submitted that the allegations of kidnapping, extortion and caste-based abuse are not supported by the material collected during investigation. The informant's own statement indicates the existence of a dispute regarding compensation and the land transaction. The Investigating Officer ultimately dropped several serious sections and submitted charge-sheet only under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. Accordingly, it is contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to pressurise them in the land acquisition proceedings, and the impugned order taking cognizance is unsustainable in law. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A for the State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the FIR was registered on the basis of specific allegations that the appellants had abducted the informant, obtained Rs.4,70,000/- and abused him by caste-related words. The investigation was conducted in accordance with law, during which the statements of the informant and witnesses, relevant sale documents, and other relevant records CRLA No. 6552 of 2026 2 were collected. It is further submitted that, upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima facie material against the appellants and submitted charge-sheet under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Cognizance was thereafter taken by the competent court. The plea that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot, at this stage, efface the criminal allegations supported by the material collected during investigation. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 7. The First Information Report was lodged against the accused-appellants, namely Kamlesh Yadav and Vijay Yadav, along with three unknown persons, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 364-A, 419 and 420 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.09.2022, when the victim/informant was allegedly abducted for ransom. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded, out of which Rs.4,70,000/- was allegedly paid by the informant's son. However, no specific time of the alleged abduction was mentioned in the FIR. It is also borne out from the case diary that, after acquisition of the land by the National Highway Authority and payment of compensation in favour of Tilki Devi who is mother of appellant no.2 Kamlesh Singh Yadav, the informant Hansraj Bhartiya executed sale deeds in respect of Khasra No.26- Ka, measuring 63 sq. metres and 137 sq. metres, in favour of Anita Devi and Ram Asre. The said documents have been incorporated in the case diary. During investigation, the allegations regarding demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom and payment of Rs.4,70,000/- were not substantiated. No forgery was found by the Investigating Officer, and the charge-sheet was submitted only for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) (va) of S.C. & S.T.Act. The appellants have denied commission of the offences alleged in the FIR. 8. From a perusal of the FIR, statements of the informant and witnesses, the sale deed/agreement to sell and the material contained in the case diary, it appears that the dispute between the parties is primarily civil in nature. So far as the offences under the S.C. & S.T. Act are concerned, the residential address of the informant is Swaraj Nagar, Post Teliyarganj, Shivkuti, District Prayagraj whereas residential address of appellant no.1-Vijay Shankar Yadav is Bami, Lalganj, Mirzapur and residential address of appellant no.2 CRLA No. 6552 of 2026 3 Kamlesh Singh Yadav is Baruin, Jamaniya Ghazipur, therefore, residential address of the informant and the appellants is quite different, and there is no reliable material on record to establish that the appellants were tenants of the informant. For attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the material on record must disclose the requisite intention or knowledge to insult or humiliate the victim on the ground of his belonging to the SC/ST community, along with the other statutory requirements of the alleged offence. In the present case, no reliable material has been brought on record to satisfy such requirements. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC is concerned, mere use of abusive or insulting words, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute the said offence. The prosecution is required to establish that the accused intentionally insulted the victim and thereby gave provocation to him, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. In the present case, the prosecution evidence does not establish the necessary ingredients of intentional insult coupled with the requisite intention or knowledge that such provocation was likely to cause breach of public peace or commission of any other offence. The evidence on record, even if taken at its highest, does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 504 IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 504 IPC cannot be sustained and the appellant is entitled to acquittal of the said charge. 10. 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 CRLA No. 6552 of 2026 4 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. 11. 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 Section 3(1)(r). 12. 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 . 13. 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. 14. 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, 1989. The material collected during inquiry does not CRLA No. 6552 of 2026 5 indicate that the alleged words or conduct were actuated by the caste or were intended to intentionally insult or humiliate any person 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). Likewise, the allegations are wholly insufficient to satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. 15. In view of the settled legal position and the absence of foundational facts constituting the alleged offences, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be sustained in law. The appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. 16. The impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj in Special Case No.600 of 2026,(State vs. Kamlesh Singh Yadav and others), arising out case crime no.0033 of 2024, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) (va) of S.C. & S.T.Act, P.S. Shivkuti, District Prayagraj, as well as chargesheet dated 27.07.2024 is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) (va) of S.C. & S.T.Act against the appellants Vijay Shankar Yadav and Kamlesh Singh Yadav stand quashed. 17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to court concerned through District & Sessions Judge within 48 hours. September 23, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 6552 of 2026 6 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad