# Amit Kumar Singh v. Gola & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2017
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1417 of 2010
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-singh-v-gola-anr-51920
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989-Sections 3 (1) (Dha) & 3 (1) (s)-
Applicant is a student of Hotel Management in
Sydney, Australia- first complaint was lodged by
the
opposite
party-found
fake-proceeding
dropped-after
nine
months-he
filed
an
Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the same factsApplicant has not abused the opposite party by
caste name in any place within the public viewsec.3 (1) (Dha) or sec. 3(1) (s) of the Act, 1989
not attracted-incidence took place inside the
house of the complainant -not a place with
public view-no outsider was sitting in the room
-nor anyone has seen the alleged incident-from
nature of evidence-contents of complaintincident does not appear to happen-summoning
order quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,807 of 61,827. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39807 for what follows._

5 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Gola & Anr.
2017
held that where there has been a long period
of continuous separation, it may fairly be
concluded that the matrimonial bond is
beyond repair. The marriage becomes a
fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
refusing to sever that tie, the law in such
cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant
regard for the feelings and emotions of the
parties, which leads to cruelty. Recently,
the Apex Court in the case of Rajib Kumar
Roy Vs. Sushmita Saha : 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1221 observed as under :-

 "Continued
bitterness,
dead
emotions and long separation, in the given
facts and circumstances of a case, can be
construed as a case of "irretrievable
breakdown of marriage", which is also a
facet of "cruelty". In Rakesh Raman v.
Kavita reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
497, this is precisely what was held, that
though in a given case cruelty as a fault,
may not be attributable to one party alone
and hence despite irretrievable breakdown
of marriage keeping the parties together
amounts to cruelty on both sides. Which is
precisely the case at hand."

(35) For all the aforesaid reasons, both
the appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgment dated 22.02.2021 is hereby setaside. The appellant/wife is granted divorce
on the ground of cruelty under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Suit No. 2335 of 2015 is allowed. Suit No.
3300 of 2014 is dismissed.

(36) There shall be no order as to
cost.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2017
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1417 of 2010

Amit Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Gola & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajeev Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Alok
Singh, Vijay Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Anurag Singh Chauhan

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989-Sections 3 (1) (Dha) & 3 (1) (s)-
Applicant is a student of Hotel Management in
Sydney, Australia- first complaint was lodged by
the
opposite
party-found
fake-proceeding
dropped-after
nine
months-he
filed
an
Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the same factsApplicant has not abused the opposite party by
caste name in any place within the public viewsec.3 (1) (Dha) or sec. 3(1) (s) of the Act, 1989
not attracted-incidence took place inside the
house of the complainant -not a place with
public view-no outsider was sitting in the room
-nor anyone has seen the alleged incident-from
nature of evidence-contents of complaintincident does not appear to happen-summoning
order quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426

2. Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs St. of Bihar & ors.
reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107

3. Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. St. of
Mah., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1786

4. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020)
10 SCC 710

5. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs St. of U.P. & anr.;
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 668
2018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs St. of Uttranchal & anr.
reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157

7. Ankit Vs St. of U.P. & anr. reported in JIC 2010
(1) page 432

8. Mahadev Prasad Kaushik Vs St. of U.P. (2008)
14 SCC 479

9. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383

10. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C.
866, (ii) St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)426,

11. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192,

12. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq and 22 another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC
(Cri.) 283

13. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah. , AIR 2021 SC 1918

14. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(44) ACC 168

15. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. & anr. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate & ors.: 1998 (5) SCC 749

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Singh
Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.1 and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned A.G.A.-I for the State Opposite
Party No.2 as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on
behalf of the applicant, namely, Amit
Kumar Singh with a prayer to quash the
impugned order dated 29.05.2009 passed in
Criminal Case No.897 of 2008 (Gola Vs.
Ambar Singh and Others), under Sections
323, 505, 506, 420 I.P.C. and Section
3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, Police Station Banthra, District
Lucknow pending in the court of learned
Special Judge, C.B.I., Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant is a student of
Hotel Management studying in Meridian
International
Hotel
School,
Sydney,
Australia and the entire family of the
applicant is law abiding and living
peacefully.

4. He further submitted that some
persons belonging to the pedigree of the
applicant are jealous with the success of the
family of the applicant as the elder brother
of the applicant went to Australia on
scholarship
and
settled
in
Sydney,
therefore, only with intention to malign the
dignity of the family of applicant, the
impugned proceeding was instituted.

5. He further submitted that opposite
party no.1 sent an application to the U.P.
SC/ST Commission, 10th Floor, Indira
Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, wherein a
direction was issued on 04.03.2008 to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow
for conducting inquiry in the complaint of
Sri Gola i.e. the opposite party no.1,
therefore, the concerned Circle Officer
conducted
an
inquiry,
recorded
the
statements
of
villagers
including
complainant (Sri Gola) and found that a
fake complaint has been moved by the
complainant, as such, the proceeding was
dropped.

6. He further submitted that the
opposite party no.1 deliberately kept silent
about nine months and then again filed an
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on
the same fabricated story on behest of
5 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Gola & Anr.
2019
present village Pradhan, namely, Sri Shiv
Shanker Singh against the applicant and his
family members with the allegations that
Shri Ambar Singh (uncle of the applicant)
borrowed Rs.500/- about three years prior
from the date of application (no date and
time is mentioned), however, when the
opposite party no.1 asked to return the
aforesaid amount, only Rs.150/- were
returned to him and he also refused to pay
the balance amount of Rs.350/-. Further
allegation is that inspite of refusal of Sri
Ambar Singh, the opposite party no.1
requested repeatedly for returning the
balance amount of Rs.350/- but he always
gave threat to the opposite party no.1
saying that if he will demand the balance
amount, then he will be killed. Further
allegation is that on 04.01.2008, when the
opposite party no.1 again went to the
applicant and demanded the balance
amount of Rs.350/-, he was threatened to
death and was also insulted by the
applicant, who was accompanied with
many persons alongwith fire arm weapons
as well as lathi and danda.

7. He further submitted that further
allegation is that on the next date i.e.
05.01.2008 at about 9.00 A.M. when
opposite party no.1 was at his residence,
Shri Ambar Singh and the instant applicant
along with 7-8 persons armed with rifles,
revolver, country made pistol and Lathi -
Danda again came to his house and started
abusing to the opposite party no.1.
Thereafter, he was called by them and as
soon as he came out from his house, a fire
was opened by the applicant and the
opposite party no. 1 tried to rescue himself
but the applicant started beating with the
help of Lathi Danda. Thereafter, an alarm
was made by the family members of
opposite party no.1, hearing which, several
persons were collected on the place of
incident but the applicant and other persons
ran away giving threat to the opposite party
no.1. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1
moved an application before the learned
Judicial
Magistrate
(Court
No.40),
Lucknow under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
lodging an FIR, wherein the learned
Magistrate, ordered to the Station Officer,
Police Station Banthra, District Lucknow
for producing the police report in the Court
on 04.11.2008.

8. He further submitted that the
Station Officer, Police Station Banthra,
District Lucknow submitted the police
report
before
the
learned
Judicial
Magistrate (Court No. 40) / Additional
Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division-VIII),
Lucknow, wherein it was mentioned that
the entire complaint is on the basis of
fabricated facts and it is a result of political
rivalry and no such incident took place. The
relevant part of the police report submitted
by the Station Officer on the Misc.
Application No. 162/08 Gola Vs. Ambar
Singh is being reproduced as under:-

"आवेदक श्री गोला पासी एस/ओ श्री प्रसादी पासी
मनवासी ग्राम अमावां थाना बंथरा जनपद लखनऊ की जांच मुझ
उपमनरीक्षक द्वारा मौके पर जाकर की गयी तो वाकयात मनम्न प्रकार
पाये गये। आवेदक श्री गोला पासी उपरोक्त श्री नीटू मसह एस/ओ श्री
राज बहादुर मसंह मनवासी ग्राम अमावां से लगभग दो वर्ट पहले एक
हजार रूपया अपनी पुत्ी की शादी के मलए ले गया था। श्री गोला
पासी की माली हालत बहुत ज्यादा खराब है। शादी की समय नीटू
मसंह ने रूप्या दे मदया था जबमक गोला से श्री नीटू मसंह ने अपने उधार
के रूपये मांगे तो टाल मटोल करने लगा और श्री नीटू मसंह का साथ
श्री गोला पासी छोड़कर गाव के वतटमान प्रधान श्री मशव शंकर मसंह
मनवासी ग्राम अमावा के साथ उठना बैठना और लेन-देन करने लगा।
मवपक्षी अम्बर मसंह एस/ओ पृथ्वी पाल मसंह, अममत कुमार एस/ओ
हररनाम मसंह, प्रवीण कुमार व नीटू मसंह पुत्गण राज बहादुर मसंह
मनवासी ग्राम अमांवा थारा बंथरा लखनऊ की प्रधानी चुनाव के समय
से वतटमान प्रधान श्री मशव शंकर मसंह से प्रमतद्वन्दता चल रही है,
मवपक्षीगणों द्वारा हारे हुए प्रधान उम्मीदवार श्री देवेन्र मसंह एसओ श्री
रामेश्वर मसंह मनवासी ग्राम अमांवा को समथटन मकया था. इसी
2020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
राजनैमतक प्रमतमद्वन्दता के कारण श्री मशव शंकर मसंह वतटमान प्रधान
आवेदक श्री गोला पासी एस/ओ श्री प्रसादी पासी मनवासी अमांवा
को उकसा कर झूठा एवं मनगढन्त आरोप लगाकर प्राथटना पत्
मवपमक्षयों के मवरूद्ध मदला रहे हैं। आवेदक श्री गोला को मोहरा
बनाकर अपनी राजनैमतक प्रमतमद्वन्दता मनभा रहे हैं। मवपक्षीगणों के
मवरूद्ध 500 रूप्ये उधार मांगने का आरोप एक हास्यास्पद है।
मवपक्षीगणों के पास अछछी सम्पमत्त एवं सम्पन्न पररवार है, मकसी भी
व्यमक्त द्वारा उधार रूप्ये मांगने एवं लगाये गये आरोप की पुमि नहीं
की है। उपरोक्त संबंध में लगाये गये आरोपों के संबंध में मजतने भी
मशकायती प्राथटना पत् मदए गए सभी की मवमधवत जांच से कोई आरोप
प्रमामणत नहीं हुआ। उपरोक्त आरोपों की जांच क्षेत्ामधकारी
सरोजनीनगर महोदय द्वारा भी की जा चुकी है। लगाये गये आरोप
असत्य हैं मकसी कायटवाही की आवश्यकता प्रतीत नहीं होती है।"

9. He further submitted that the police
report was submitted in the Court of
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division-VIII) /
Judicial Magistrate Room No.40, Lucknow
in relation to the application no.162/08 and
after considering the police report, the
contents of the application of Sri Gola and
arguments of his counsel, the learned Court
was pleased to decide the matter with
reasoned and speaking order and rejected
the same on 25.11.2008. The relevant part
of the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.40
Lucknow in C.M. Application No.162/08
(Gola Vs. Ambar) is being reproduced as
under:-

"प्रकीणट प्राथटना पत् संख्या-162/08
गोला बनाम अम्बर मसंह आमद

25.11.08

प्राथी गोला ने उक्त प्राथटना पत् अन्तगटत धारा 156
(3) द.प्र.सं. प्रथम सूचना ररपोटट दजट करने के संबंध में मदया है।

प्राथी ने अपने प्राथटना पत् में कहा है मक प्राथी से
लगभग तीन वर्ट पूवट अम्बर मसंह पुत् श्री पृथ्वीपाल मसंह मनवासी
ग्राम अमावा थाना बंथरा मजला लखनऊ में रूपये 500 उधार मांग
ले गये थे और वापस देने का वायदा मकया था शपथी के बहुत कहने
पर अम्बर मसंह ने 150/- रूपये वापस कर मदये तथा रूपये 350/-
शेर् नहीं मदया, जब शपथी बकाया मांगने गया तो अम्बर मसंह,
अममत कुमार, प्रवीण कुमार, नीतू मसंह ने अपने कई अन्य सामथयों
के साथ अपना लाइसेंसी राइफल, ररवाल्वर व देशी कट्टा व लाठी
डंडा से लैस होकर शपथी को धमकाया व जान से मारने की धमकी
दी अतः मवपक्षीगण के मवरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना ररपोटट दजट करने के संबंध
में आदेश पाररत करने की कृपा करें।

थाने से आख्या आह त की गयी।

थाने की आख्या का अवलोकन करने पर पाया मक
प्राथी व मवपक्षीगण के मध्य चुनाव को लेकर आपसी रंमजश है।

प्राथी के मवद्वान अमधवक्ता को सुना व थाने की
आख्या व संलग्न प्रपत्ों का अवलोकन मकया।

अवलोकन करने पर यह पाया मक प्राथी ने केवल
मौमखक रूप से कहा है मक 500/- रूपये अम्बर मसंह ने उधार मलया
था मजसमें से 150 रूपये प्राथी को ममल चुके हैं मसफट 350/-
बकाया है जबमक प्राथी ने अपने प्राथटना पत् में कहा है मक प्राथी पासी
जामत का है। प्राथी ने मकसे समक्ष पैसा उधार मदया था, इसका उल्लेख
प्राथटना पत् में नहीं मकया है। न्यायालय की राय में प्रािी िे उक्त
प्राियिा पत्र मात्र प्रिािी के चुिाि की रंशजि में शिपक्षीगण के
शिरूद्ध शदया है।.......

अतः मवपक्षीगण के मवरुद्ध पूणट रूप से संगेय अपराध
का काररत मकया जाना प्रतीत नहीं होता। प्राियिा पत्र शिरस्ि होिे
योग्य है।

आदेश

प्रािी का प्राियिा पत्र अन्िगयि िारा 156 (3)
दं०प्र०सं. शिरस्ि शकया जािा है।

ह० अपठनीय
25.11.08
न्या० मैमज० कक्ष सं.-40
लखनऊ।"

10. He further submitted that annoyed
with the aforesaid, the opposite party no.1
moved a fresh application on 06.12.2008
before the Court on the same facts and
circumstances, wherein the opposite party
no.1 concealed the facts and mislead the
learned Magistrate by saying that the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
has been disposed of on 25.11.2008,
however, it was dismissed with a reasoned
and speaking order after considering the
inquiry report submitted by the police of
Police Station Banthra, District Lucknow.
He further submitted that in absence of the
facts that the application of opposite party
5 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Gola & Anr.
2021
no. 1 has already been dismissed on
25.11.2008, the Hon'ble Court was pleased
to pass an order on 08.12.2008 for
registering a case as a Complaint Case
No.897/08,
under
Sections
323/504/506/420 IPC and Section 3(2)(5)
SC/ST Act.

11. He further submitted that the
complainant also annexed a list of two
witnesses, namely, (1) Monu Singh S/o
Ram Shankar Singh and (2) Kamlesh S/o
Annu residents of Village Amawa, Police
Station Banthra, District Lucknow along
with
the
copy
of
complaint
dated
08.12.2008 but there was no whisper about
the witnesses in the body of any complaint.
He further submitted that it is relevant to
mention here that Monu Singh is belonging
to the family of the present Pradhan.

12. He further submitted that on
05.03.2009, the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate, C.B.I., Lucknow recorded the
statement of opposite party no.1 under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., in which a new story
was narrated by the complainant Gola, who
stated that he was working as a labour for
Ambar Singh and he worked about 25 days
and in lieu of the payment of wages for 25
days, Rs.500/- was not paid by him and
whenever, he went to the Ambar Singh for
raising his demand, the same was ignored and
thereafter
on
04.01.2008,
when
the
complainant went to the Ambar Singh, he was
scolded and on 05.01.2008 at about 9.00 A.M.,
the applicant along with other family members
and associates came to the house of
complainant and a fire was opened on him but
due to interference of the wife of complainant,
the direction of fire was changed and he ran
inside the house and closed the door.

13. He further submitted that on
04.04.2009, the statement of Monu Singh
and Ram Kumar were recorded under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. but it is pertinent to
mention here that the complainant has set
up a new story i.e. in contradiction with the
facts mentioned in the complaint. He
further submitted that it is also relevant to
point out that there is no whisper available
about the presence of the witnesses and in
the list of witnesses, Sri Ram Kumar was
not mentioned but his statement was
recorded. He further submitted that it is also
relevant
to
mention
here
that
the
respondents deliberately did not produce
neighbours or his wife as witness.

14. He further submitted that the
entire complaint was filed on the basis of
fabricated facts as it was established during
the course of police inquiry submitted in the
Court as well as the inquiry conducted by
Circle Officer on the behest of U.P. SC/ST
Commission but in the most mechanical
manner the learned Magistrate had passed
the impugned order dated 29.05.2009 and
issued summons to the applicant and even a
new story was set up in the statements
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. i.e.
contradictory to the averments made in the
complaint.

15. He further submitted that the
impugned case is instituted only to malign
the dignity of the family of applicant and
the proceeding is in violation of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal,
1992 SCC (Crl.)426 and the impugned
order is perverse and it is passed in the most
arbitrary and illegal manner.

16. He further submitted that it is well
settled by this Hon'ble Court as well as by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the abuse
of process of law is not permitted and in the
present case it is very much clear that the
2022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent is abusing the legal provisions
only to harass the applicant on the behest of
the one Sri Shiv Shankar Singh, the present
village Pradhan which is very much clear
from the police report.

17. He further submitted that the
learned Magistrate passed the impugned
order saying that Sri Ambar Singh
borrowed Rs. 500/- from opposite party
no.1 and Rs.350/- was not being returned to
him, therefore, he was scolded by Sri
Ambar Singh and his associates but on oath
complainant stated that his labour charges
that was due on Ambar Singh was not being
paid and on the demand, he was scolded
and manhandled by them, therefore, order
is perverse and the same is liable to be
quashed in the light of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhajan Lal (Supra).

18. He further submitted that the
impugned proceeding is under challenge in
Criminal Misc. Case No.2468 of 2009
(Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Ambar Singh & two others Versus Gola &
another before the Hon'ble High Court,
wherein, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to
pass an Interim Order on 09.07.2009 and
stayed the operation and implementation of
the impugned order dated 29.05.2009. The
order dated 09.07.2009 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court is being
reproduced hereunder:-

"Heard the learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused
the record.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has drawn my attention towards
the
material
contradictions
in
the
allegations made in the complaint and in
the statement of the complainant recorded
under section 200 Cr.P.C. He has further
submitted that after rejection of the
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
the complaint has been filed on the basis of
the wrong facts and the allegations made in
the complaint have not been corroborated
by the statement of the complainant.

The learned A.G.A. has received
notice on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

Issue notice to the opposite party
no.1 returnable at an early date.

Let the steps be taken within three
days.

The opposite parties may file
their respective counter affidavit within six
weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed within two weeks thereafter.

List after the expiry of the
aforesaid period.

Till the next date of listing, the
operation / implementation of the impugned
order dated 29.05.2009 shall remain
stayed."

19. He further submitted that the
applicant is studying in Sydney, therefore,
he was not aware about the impugned
proceeding and it came into the knowledge
of the applicant in the month of December
2009, but the applicant has already
deposited
the
fees
for
the
Hotel
Management Course and in every month he
has to appear in the examination, in these
circumstances, the present petition was
being filed after some delay but the same is
bonafide. He further submitted that it is also
relevant to mention here that the impugned
criminal proceeding has been instituted
only to malign the dignity of the family of
the applicant, therefore, in the interest of
justice, the entire proceeding is liable to be
quashed.

20. Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.1
has opposed the arguments raised by the
5 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Gola & Anr.
2023
learned counsel for the applicant and has
submitted that offences under Sections 323,
505, 506, 420 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are
made out against the applicant. As per the
version of F.I.R., the applicant had abused
the complainant/informant with caste
abusive words in a public place, where
other persons were present, therefore,
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act
will be made out against the applicant.
Similarly, in a public place other persons
were also present, therefore, it is a public
view. In these circumstances the impugned
order dated 29.05.2009, summoning the
applicant and taking cognizance, was
rightly passed, as such, the same is not
liable to be quashed and the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
liable to be dismissed.

21. In support of his argument,
learned Counsel for the respondent No.1
has placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Allauddin Khan vs. State of Bihar and
Others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107.

22. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned
A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent No.2 also
made an agreement with the arguments of
learned Counsel for the respondent No.1
and submitted that prima facie offence is
made out against the applicant and learned
trial court has rightly passed impugned
summoning order after considering the
material placed on record, thus, the
applicant is not entitled for any relief by this
Court and the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be dismissed.

23. After considering the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of record in light of the
submissions made at the Bar and after
taking an overall view of all the facts and
circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and the contents of the F.I.R. as
well as summoning order dated 29.05.2009,
this court is of the view that the Act, 1989
is meant to prevent the commission of
offences of atrocities against the members
of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule
Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and
Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of
such offences and for the relief and
rehabilitation of the victims of such
offences
and
for
matters
connected
therewith or incidental thereto.

24. It is further observed that the Act,
1989 was enacted to improve the social
economic conditions of the vulnerable
sections of the society as they have been
subjected to various offences such as
indignities, humiliations and harassment.
They have been deprived of life and
property as well. The object of the Act,
1989 is thus to punish the violators who
inflict
indignities,
humiliations
and
harassment and commit the offence as
defined under Section 3 of the Act, 1989.
The Act, 1989 thus intended to punish the
acts of the upper caste against the
vulnerable section of the society for the
reason that they belong to a particular
community. Section 3(1)(Dha) of the Act,
1989 or 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989 would read
as under:-

"Section 3(1)(s) of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989- abuses any member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe
by caste name in any place within the public
view"

25. Thus, even though the basic
ingredient of the offence under Section
2024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3(1)(Dha) can be clarified as abuse of any
member of Schedule Caste or a Schedule
Tribe by caste name in any place within
the public view.

26. It is further observed that an
offence under the Act, 1989 would be made
out when a member of the vulnerable
section of the society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment in
any place within the public view.

27. In the present case, this Court
finds that the applicant has not abused the
respondent No.1 by caste name in any place
within the public view, thus, Section
3(1)(Dha) of the Act, 1989 or 3(1)(s) of the
Act, 1989 is also not attracted in the present
case. Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989 would
read as under:-

"Section 3(1)(s) of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989- abuses any member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe
by caste name in any place within the public
view"

28. It is further observed that the
complainant also annexed a list of two
witnesses, namely, (1) Monu Singh S/o
Ram Shankar Singh and (2) Kamlesh S/o
Annu residents of Village Amawa, Police
Station Banthra, District Lucknow along
with
the
copy
of
complaint
dated
08.12.2008 but there was no whisper about
the witnesses in the body of any complaint
and the witness Monu Singh is belonging to
the family of the present Pradhan.

29. Further, in the present case, this
Court finds that the offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, whereby the
applicant
has
been
summoned
vide
impugned
summoning
order
dated
29.05.2009, is also not made out against the
applicant as from bare perusal of complaint
as well as summoning order, the ingredients
of the aforesaid Section is missing. Section
3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 is being quoted
hereunder:-

"commits any offence under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable
with imprisonment for a term of ten years
or more against a person or property
knowing that such person is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for
life and with fine;"

30. It is further observed that as per
his own case, the respondent No.1 clearly
stated in the complaint and in his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that
whatever incident took place that took
place inside his house, thus, it is not a place
within a public view as no outsider was
sitting in the room nor anyone has seen the
alleged incident. Even the independent
witnesses whose names were taken by the
respondent No.1 were also not present
inside the house at the time of the alleged
incident. Even though the ingredients of
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 is also not
attracted in the present case.

31. It is further observed that offence
under the Act, 1989 is not established
merely
on
the
fact
that
the
informant/complainant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention
to humiliate a member of Schedule Caste or
Schedule Tribe for the reason that the
victim belongs to such caste.

32. This Court further observes that
we rarely come across a society, in which
crime is not committed by a person on
5 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Gola & Anr.
2025
another. There are number of penal laws to
punish the offenders of such crimes. Such
laws apply to every offender, irrespective of
his caste or creed. However, taking into
consideration the indignities to which
persons belonging to scheduled castes or
scheduled tribe were and are subjected and
atrocities committed on them only on the
ground that such persons belonged to such
caste. The Parliament has enacted the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to prevent
atrocities on the persons belonging to
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. The
object behind clause (v) of Section 3(2) of
the Act is to punish the persons, who
commit offences under the Indian Penal
Code punishable for a term of ten years or
more, against a members of Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes on the ground
that such person belongs to Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes or such
property belongs to such person, by higher
and more severe punishment.

33. This Court further observes that as
special and stricter provisions have been
made in the Act, it is the duty of the
prosecution to examine the case more
carefully. Registration of the offence under
the Act, only because the complainant party
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and the
accused persons did not belong to a
Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste was a
mechanical exercise of authority and it has
to be deprecated.

34. From the language used by the
Legislature in Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, it
is clear that this Section does not constitute
any substantive offence and if any person
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled tribe commits any offence
under the Indian Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment for a term of ten years
or more against a person or property on the
ground that such person is a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member, then
enhanced punishment of life imprisonment
would be awarded in such cases, meaning
thereby that conviction and sentence under
Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, simpliciter is
not permissible and in cases where an
offence under the Indian Penal Code
punishable with imprisonment for a term of
ten years or more is committed against a
person or property on the ground that such
person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
to such member, then in such a case the
accused will be convicted and sentenced for
the offence under Indian Penal Code read
with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, with
imprisonment for life and also with fine.
Thus, in order to attract the provision of
Section 3(2)(v) the following ingredients
must be established :

"(1) The offender should not be a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe;

(2) He must commit an offence
under the Indian Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or
more;

(3) The commission of such
offence must be against a person or
property of a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe;

(4) The offences must have been
committed on the ground that such person
is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe."

35. The words "on the ground" have
not been used in anywhere in the Act,
except in clause (v) of Section 3(2) of the
Act. It will be seen that only serious
offences under the Indian Penal Code
2026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which are punishable with imprisonment
for a term of 10 years or more are covered
by clause (v). However, the provisions of
the I.P.C. are universally applicable
whereas the clause (v) is applicable only
where the victim is a person belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The
law therefore expects a graver kind of mens
rea denoted by the words " on the ground",
to render already serious offences under the
Indian Penal Code more serious, which has
the effect of making it punishable by no less
a punishment than imprisonment for life. In
order to constitute an offence under Section
3(2)(v) of Act, 1989, something more than
'intention' is needed - the offence against
the victim must have been committed with
a particular object, i.e., it must have been
committed 'on the ground' that he was a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe.

36. The expression "on the ground"
has been subject matter of decision in a
number of cases decided under the SC/ST
(P.A.) Act. In the case of Masumsha
Hasanasha
Musalman
v.
State
of
Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2000 SC
1786 it was held that " To attract the
provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the
sine qua non is that the victim should be a
person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence
under the Indian Penal Code is committed
against him on the basis that such a person
belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such
ingredients, no offence under the Section
3(2) (v) of the Act, is constituted.

37. It is further observed by this Court
that from the bare perusal of the complaint,
the utterances, if any, as mentioned in
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 are not
fulfilled. The Investigating agencies while
investigating the matter are duty bound to
consider the factual aspects of the matter
and also to consider the statement of
witnesses, complainant as well as the
applicant so as to ascertain whether the
chargesheet makes out a case under the Act,
1989 having been committed for forming a
proper opinion in the conspectus of the
situation
before
it,
prior
to
taking
cognizance of the offence by learned
Magistrate. In the present case from the
factual aspects and statements discussed
above, no offence is made out under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. Though,
the learned Magistrate has not applied its
judicial mind while taking cognizance in
the matter and even though, he has only
relied on the contents of the complaint and
summoned the applicant by impugned
order to face trial, which is very serious
matter.

38. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court deems it proper to
discuss some case laws.

39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of
Hitesh
Verma
Vs.
State
of
Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 has
been pleased to observe in para 13, 14 and
18 as under :-

"13. 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
5 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Gola & Anr.
2027
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 No.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 No.2 is member
of Scheduled Caste.

14. Another key ingredient of the
provision is insult or intimidation in "any
place within public view". What is to be
regarded as "place in public view" had
come up for consideration before this Court
in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh
v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8
SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The
Court had drawn distinction between the
expression "public place" and "in any
place within public view". It was held that
if an offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and
the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall,
then the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. On the contrary, if
the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then it would
not be an offence since it is not in the public
view (sic) . The Court held as under :

"28. It has been alleged in the
FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant,
was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a "chamar") when he stood
near the car which was parked at the gate
of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since
the gate of a house is certainly a place
within public view. It could have been a
different matter had the alleged offence
been committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if the
offence is committed outside the building
e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn
can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public
view. Also, even if the remark is made inside
a building, but some members of the public
are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is
in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression "place within public
view" with the expression "public place".
A place can be a private place but yet within
the public view. On the other hand, a public
place would ordinarily mean a place which
is owned or leased by the Government or
the municipality (or other local body) or
gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the
State, and not by private persons or private
bodies."

18. Therefore, offence under the
Act is not established merely on the fact that
the informant is a member of Scheduled
Caste unless there is an intention to
humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the
victim belongs to such caste. In the present
case, the parties are litigating over
possession of the land. The allegation of
hurling of abuses is against a person who
claims title over the property. If such person
happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the
offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is
not made out."

40. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs.
State of U.P. and Another; (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 668 has been pleased to
observe in paragraph 17, 18 and 21 as
under:-
2028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"17. The first question that calls
for an answer is whether it was at a place
within public view that the appellant hurled
caste related abuses at the complainant
with an intent to insult or intimidate with an
intent to humiliate him. From the chargesheet dated 21st January, 2016 filed by the
I.O., it appears that the prosecution would
seek to rely on the evidence of three
witnesses to drive home the charge against
the appellant of committing offences under
sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x),
SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none
other than the complainant, his wife and
their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the
charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth
individual (a member of the public) at the
place of occurrence (apart from the
appellant, the complainant, his wife and
their son). Since the utterances, if any,
made by the appellant were not "in any
place within public view", the basic
ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of
the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We,
therefore, hold that at the relevant point of
time of the incident (of hurling of caste
related abuse at the complainant by the
appellant), no member of the public was
present.

18.
That
apart,
assuming
arguendo that the appellant had hurled
caste related abuses at the complainant
with a view to insult or humiliate him, the
same does not advance the case of the
complainant any further to bring it within
the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act. We have noted from the first F.I.R. as
well as the charge- sheet that the same
makes no reference to the utterances of the
appellant during the course of verbal
altercation or to the caste to which the
complainant belonged, except for the
allegation/observation that caste-related
abuses were hurled. The legislative intent
seems to be clear that every insult or
intimidation for humiliation to a person
would not amount to an offence under
section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of
course, such insult or intimidation is
targeted at the victim because of he being a
member of a particular Scheduled Caste or
Tribe. If one calls another an idiot
(bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief
(chor) in any place within public view, this
would obviously constitute an act intended
to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or
offensive language.