HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8010 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 AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the charge-sheet dated 14.7.2025, supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.1.2026 as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 2.7.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Prayagraj in Special Case No.912 of 2026 (State vs. Samshad @ Allahabadi & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No.82 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present case has been lodged with an ulterior motive on account of longstanding criminal rivalry between the parties. It is contended that the earlier incident of 6.9.1994 culminated in the conviction of appellant nos.1 and 4, against which their criminal appeals are pending before this Court and they have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that there is no reliable material to show that the appellants ever intimidated or pressurized the informant, victim or any witness in connection with the earlier case. The present case is merely based on a vague allegation of intimidation, without attributing any specific overt act to any of the appellants, and no injury has been caused. It is also urged that the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sharda Prasad Singh, Shri Raghavendra Singh Samshad @ Allahabadi @ Shamshad Ahmad And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) informant is in the habit of lodging false criminal cases, as reflected from the documents annexed with the appeal. Therefore, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA, opposed the appeal and submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law. It is contended that the FIR and the statements recorded during the inquiry disclose prima facie allegations of criminal intimidation and commission of offences. It is further submitted that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and not to appreciate the evidence in detail. Therefore, the impugned summoning order does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. In the FIR, four accused persons, namely Shamsad alias Allahabadi, Mirza Ahmed, Kallu Yadav and Ram Singh, have been named. The FIR has been registered under Sections 351, 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Admittedly, the FIR itself discloses that there existed previous criminal rivalry between the informant/victim and the accused persons. It is also admitted that the alleged earlier incident occurred on 6.9.1994, in which accused appellant nos.1 and 4 were convicted by the Special Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their criminal appeals against the said judgment are pending before this Court, and they have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1096 of 2022 and 1894 of 2022 vide order dated 21.08.2024. It is further evident that no reliable material has been brought on record by opposite party no.2 to demonstrate that the accused appellants had intimidated, threatened or pressurized the informant, victim or any witness in connection with the earlier criminal case during the pendency of the trial before the Special Court. After the judgment of conviction in the earlier case, the allegation that the accused appellants threatened the informant to compromise the said matter does not appear to inspire confidence. The present case is not one involving any physical injury. The allegation is confined to intimidation, and no specific or distinct overt act has been attributed to any of the accused appellants either in the FIR or in the statements of the informant and the victim. The CRLA No. 8010 of 2026 2 contention of the appellants that the informant is in the habit of lodging false criminal cases has also been supported by documents annexed as annexure-8 to the appeal. 6. In the case of Swaran Singh Vs State (2008)8SCC 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. 7. 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 Supreme 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). 8. Having considered the rival submissions, the material brought on record, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the CRLA No. 8010 of 2026 3 aforesaid decisions, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the material collected during investigation/inquiry do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. In the absence of any specific allegation of intentional caste-based insult or humiliation attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the impugned charge-sheet and the summoning order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. Consequently, the charge-sheet dated 14.7.2025, supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.1.2026 as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 2.7.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Prayagraj in Special Case No.912 of 2026 (State vs. Samshad @ Allahabadi & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No.82 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj, are hereby set aside. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 11. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge concerned by e- mail/FAX within 48 hours. September 23, 2026 RA CRLA No. 8010 of 2026 4 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad