HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10140 of 2022 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. 2. 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. 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellants to quash the cognizance/summoning Order dated 07.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat and Charge-Sheet No.311/2019 dated 24.10.2019 arising out of Case Crime No.481 of 2018, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mangalpur, District- Ramabai Nagar. 4. Tersely, as per prosecution case, an FIR was lodged against four accused persons namely Ajay Kumar Singh, Abhay Kumar Singh, Aditya Kumar Singh and Ankit Kumar Singh. The accused persons had executed registered sale deeds in favour of the informant concerning Arazi Nos. 76-Kha, 77-Ga and 79-Ka, and possession of the said land was delivered to the informant. It was alleged that between 07.09.2017 and 09.09.2017, the accused persons removed/stole soil from the said land, thereby causing the informant an alleged loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. It was further alleged that on 22.10.2018, while the informant was returning after inspecting his field, the accused persons intercepted him, abused him by using caste-related remarks and assaulted him with lathi, danda and kicks. 5. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shiv Shankar Kaithal Abhay Kumar Singh And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat 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. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants, being recorded tenure-holders, had executed registered sale deeds dated 06.05.1995 and 04.07.1997 in favour of opposite party no.2 and his wife Munni Devi in respect of the disputed land, after receiving the sale consideration and handing over possession. Their names were thereafter duly mutated in the revenue records. It was contended that opposite party no.2 remained in possession without any grievance from 1995 till 2018, and the present criminal proceedings were initiated after about 22 years on false and concocted allegations arising out of a civil dispute. It was further submitted that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, theft, assault or criminal intimidation. Civil Suit No.123 of 2019 is already pending between the parties for adjudication of their rights over the property. The trial court, while taking cognizance and passing the summoning order dated 07.11.2020, failed to properly consider the material on record and acted without application of judicial mind. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the submission of appellant and submitted that the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation disclose specific allegations against the appellants, including illegal interference with the disputed property, removal of soil, abuse, assault and threats. The fact that registered sale deeds were executed in favour of opposite party no.2 and his wife does not, by itself, extinguish the criminal allegations arising from the subsequent conduct of the appellants. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer, after investigation, found sufficient material and submitted the charge-sheet, on the basis of which the trial court has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the appellants. The pendency of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings where the allegations also disclose criminal offences. The questions relating to the truthfulness of the allegations, the defence of the appellants and the evidentiary value of the material are matters for consideration during trial and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated at the stage of cognizance. CRLA No. 10140 of 2022 2 8. The First Information Report was registered against four accused persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Singh, Abhay Kumar Singh, Aditya Kumar Singh and Ankit Kumar Singh. The allegation is that the accused-appellants executed registered sale deeds in favour of the informant in respect of Arazi Nos. 76- Kha, 77-Ga and 79-Ka, pursuant to which possession was delivered to the informant. It is further alleged that between 07.09.2017 and 09.09.2017, the accused-appellants stolen soil from the aforesaid land, causing loss assessed by the informant at Rs.3,00,000/-. However, the FIR does not disclose any specific basis or material on the basis of which the alleged loss of Rs.3,00,000/- was assessed. It is admitted that a civil suit concerning the aforesaid property is pending between the parties. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also admitted that the aforesaid Arazis were transferred in favour of the informant through registered sale deeds. The informant has further alleged that when he objected to the digging/removal of soil, the accused caused injuries to him on 22.10.2018. However, the medical report was prepared on 23.10.2018 and records the duration of injuries as two to three days. So far as the allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned, neither the FIR nor the case diary contains any reliable material to show that the appellants used any casteist slur or insulted or humiliated the informant on the ground of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There is also no reliable material on record to establish the allegation of forgery or any other independent criminal act. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances, the allegations appear to have arisen out of the existing civil dispute between the parties. The criminal proceedings, therefore, appear to have been given a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil/property dispute. 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 CRLA No. 10140 of 2022 3 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 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. 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. CRLA No. 10140 of 2022 4 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)5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The material collected during inquiry does not 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 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C.. 14. 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. 15. The impugned the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat and Charge-Sheet No.311/2019 dated 24.10.2019 arising out of Case Crime No.481 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mangalpur, District- Ramabai Nagar is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 341, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act against the appellants Abhay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh stand quashed. 16. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to court concerned through District & Sessions Judge within 48 hours. September 23, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 10140 of 2022 5 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad