# Bhaiya Lal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhaiya-lal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49554
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 143 & 506 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(Dha) -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 161 - Summoning order -
Quashing of - Appellant, manager of
School,
affiliated
to
C.B.S.E
-
On
30.07.2021, C.B.S.E. declared Class XII
results for academic session 2020-21 -
Out of 140 students, 129 passed, 23 were
placed in compartment and 11 failed,
including
son
of
respondent
no.3
-
Aggrieved
by
failure
of
his
son,
respondent no.3 unlawfully entered school
premises,
misbehaved
and
abused
teaching staff - Respondent no.3 lodged
FIR
alleging
that
appellant
and
his
associates offered ₹5,00,000/- to end
protests over students' failure and on
refusal,
threatened
him
-
Appellant
neither abused respondent no.3 by caste
name nor used any caste-based language
in public view - FIR contains no allegation
of such abuse - Magistrate, without
properly considering FIR, evidence or
material
on
record,
took
cognizance
despite respondent's own case indicating
that alleged incident occurred inside his
house without public view - Independent
witnesses denied incident, St.ments of
appellant & ors.recorded by Investigating
Officer ignored - Hence, ingredients of
Section of SC/ST Act, 1989 not satisfied,
no offence made out against appellant -
Impugned set aside, quashed. (Para 3, 4,
6, 36, 46)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,933 of 73,120. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39933 for what follows._

246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Let a copy of this order be
intimated
to
the
Principal
Secretary,
Horticulture
Experiment
and
Training
Centre, Saharanpur, U.P. by registry within
three working days for information and
taking
appropriate
steps
strictly
in
accordance with law, if so required.

16. Since the fine is to be deposited
by opposite party no. 4 within a period of
one month from today, therefore, list this
case again on 19.01.2024. On that date, the
officer, who is present today in person,
shall again appear in person and shall
apprise the Court through learned Standing
Counsel as to whether he has deposited the
fine before the Senior Registrar of this
Court or not and if the fine is not deposited,
the specific reason to that effect would be
apprised to the Court.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 246
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2022

Bhaiya Lal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Nishi Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Vaibhav Kalia

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 143 & 506 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(Dha) -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 161 - Summoning order -
Quashing of - Appellant, manager of
School,
affiliated
to
C.B.S.E
-
On
30.07.2021, C.B.S.E. declared Class XII
results for academic session 2020-21 -
Out of 140 students, 129 passed, 23 were
placed in compartment and 11 failed,
including
son
of
respondent
no.3
-
Aggrieved
by
failure
of
his
son,
respondent no.3 unlawfully entered school
premises,
misbehaved
and
abused
teaching staff - Respondent no.3 lodged
FIR
alleging
that
appellant
and
his
associates offered ₹5,00,000/- to end
protests over students' failure and on
refusal,
threatened
him
-
Appellant
neither abused respondent no.3 by caste
name nor used any caste-based language
in public view - FIR contains no allegation
of such abuse - Magistrate, without
properly considering FIR, evidence or
material
on
record,
took
cognizance
despite respondent's own case indicating
that alleged incident occurred inside his
house without public view - Independent
witnesses denied incident, St.ments of
appellant & ors.recorded by Investigating
Officer ignored - Hence, ingredients of
Section of SC/ST Act, 1989 not satisfied,
no offence made out against appellant -
Impugned set aside, quashed. (Para 3, 4,
6, 36, 46)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand reported
in (2020) 10 SCC 710, (Paras 13, 14, 18)

2. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. St. of U.P. &
anr.; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 668, (Paras 17, 18,
21)

3. Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs St. of Uttranchal & anr.
repored in (2008) 17 SCC 157, (Paras 11 to 15)

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

5. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal reported in 1992 SCC
(Crl.) 426

6. Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs St. of Bihar &
ors.reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107
12 All. Bhaiya Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
247
7. Mahadev Prasad Kaushik Vs St. of U.P. (2008)
14 SCC 479

8. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 S.C. 866

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

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

11. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)
283

12. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918

13. S.W. Palankattkar & ors.Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(44) ACC 168
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
appellant assisted by Sri Aditya Pandey,
Advocate, Sri Vaibhav Kalia, learned
counsel for the respondent no.3 and Ms.
Charu Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1989") has been filed by the appellant,
namely, Bhaiya Lal Singh with a prayer to set
aside the proceedings of the Special Sessions
Trial No.107 of 2022 (State Vs. Manager
B.L. Singh and Others) arising out of Case
Crime No.439 of 2021, Police StationKotwali, District-Raebareli, under Section
143 and 506 I.P.C. as well as under Section
3(1)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, pending in
the Court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T.
Act, Raebareli. Further prayer is to set aside
the impugned cognizance as well as
summoning order dated 07.02.2022 passed
by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act,
Raebareli in the aforesaid case, whereby
cognizance was taken against the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the facts of the case is that the
appellant is an educationist by profession and
runs a school, named as, BSS Public School
at Anmol Vihar in Raebareli and he also the
manager of the said institution, which is
affiliated to C.B.S.E. Board. On 30.07.2021,
result of Class XIIth by C.B.S.E. Board was
declared for the academic year 2020-2021,
wherein total 140 students appeared from the
school of the appellant and out of which, 129
students passed, 23 students had to write
compartment examination and 11 students
failed. Out of the 11 failed students, one
student, namely, Ritesh Sonkar is the son of
respondent no.3.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that aggrieved by the fact
that son of the respondent no.3 failed, the
respondent no.3 entered into the school
premises and started misbehaving and
abusing the teachers. The information of this
incident was immediately communicated to
the Inspector, Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli vide
letter dated 31.07.2021, which is being
quoted hereunder:-

"izs"kd

izcU/kd

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd Ldwy

veksy fogkj] jk;cjsyh

lsok esa]

baLisDVj dksrokyh lnj

jk;cjsyh

egksn;

fuosnu gS fd fo|ky; esa 2020&21 dh
lhfu;j lsdsUMjh ijh{kkvksa dk ifj.kke fnukad
30@07@2021 dks ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa lh-ch-
,l-bZ- bykgkckj }kjk iznRr vadks ds vuqlkj mRrh.kZ
vFkok vuqmRrh.kZ Nk=@Nk=kvksa dh vad rkfydk
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fon~;ky; dks miyC/k djkbZ x;h FkhA lh-ch-,l-bZ- esa
;g Hkh izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd tks Nk= orZeku
vadks ls larq"V u gks og viuh lgefr nsdj ijh{kk esa
cSBdj uohu vadrkfydk izkIr dj ldrk gSA
fon~;ky; ds Nk= fjrs'k lksudj iq= Jh larks"k dqekj
lksudj fuoklh 277@15 izHkw Vkmu] fudV HkkxZo
dksBh]
jk;cjsyh&
229001
vuqmRrh.kZ
FksA
31@07@2021 dks 12%30 cts Jh larks"k dqekj lksudj
vius iq= fjrs'k dqekj lksudj ds lkFk fon~;ky;
dk;kZy; vk, vkSj dk;kZy; esa fon~;ky; izcU/kd]
iz/kkukpk;Z rFkk LVkQ ds fy, xkyh xykSp rFkk vHknz
Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx fd;k rFkk fon~;ky; LVkQ dks
fon~;ky; ds ckgj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA
ftlds dkj.k fon~;ky; n~okjk 112 Mk;y djds
LFkkuh; iqfyl dks Hkh cqyk;k x;k blds vrfjDr Jh
larks"k dqekj lksudj us vius ikY; fjrs'k lksudj dks
Hkh vokaNuh; 'kCn cksyus ds fy, mdlk;kA

vkidh lsok esa ;g vkosnu bl vk'k; ls
fn;k tk jgk gS fd lacfU/kr vfHkHkkod Jh larks"k
dqekj lksudj fuoklh 277@15 izHkw Vkmu] fudV
HkkxZo dksBh] jk;cjsyh& 229001 ds fo:) izFke lwpuk
fjiksVZ (F.I.R.) ntZ djrs gq, fon~;ky; dh lqj{kk gsrq
vko';d dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsa] ftlls Hkfo";
esa dksbZ ,slh ?kVuk u gks ldsA

g0 viBuh;

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd Ldwy

veksy fogkj] jk;cjsyh

9415090179"

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the respondent No.3
did not stop there and continued to protest
against the institution creating panic in the
institution, thereafter, when near friends
tried to pacify the matter on 03.08.2021, all
the efforts went in vain and respondent
No.3 threatened the appellant and said that
he will implicate the appellant in a false
case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that on 04.08.2021, the
respondent no.3 lodged the present F.I.R.
bearing Case Crime No.0439 of 2021,
under Sections 143 and 506 I.P.C. as well
as under Section 3(1)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act
at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District
Raebareli, alleging therein that around 70
students have failed in the Class XIIth
Board Examination conducted by C.B.S.E.
and since the complainant was making
efforts to provide justice to the failed
students, therefore, the appellant alongwith
other associates came to his house and
offered
the
complainant
a
sum
of
Rs.5,00,000/- to end the protest and when
the complainant refused to accept the same,
the appellant alongwith his associates
threatened to his life. The aforesaid F.I.R. is
being quoted hereunder:-

"udy rgjhj &&&& lsok esa Jheku Fkkuk
izHkkjh fujh{kd egksn; Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj ftyk
jk;csjyhA fo"k;& ch0,l0,l0 ifCyd Ldwy veksy
fogkj jk;csjyh ds izcU/kd ch0,y0 flag ,oa 10&15
vU; O;fDr;ks }kjk izkFkhZ ds vkokl ij fnukad 03-082021 dks jkf= djhc 09-39 cts igqpdj izkFkhZ ls
ckrphr ds nkSjku tku ls ekj nsus dh /kedh fn;s
tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn; fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ lUrks"k
dqekj lksudj iq= Lo0 Jh jkecyh ds fuokl
277@15] izHkq Vkmu jk;cjsyh dk fuoklh gS ,oa
orZeku le; esa izkFkhZ ch0,l0,l0 Ldwy iz'kklu }kjk
d{kk&12 ds lh0ch0,l0lh0 cksMZ ds 70 cPpks dks Qsy
fd;s tkus ds ckn mUgs U;k; fnykus ds ys iwjh rjg
ls rRij gS vkSj cPpks ds vfHkHkkod ds :i esa Ldwy
iz'kklu ls cPpks dks U;k; fnykus ds ckr yxkrkj
djrk gSA ftlds dkj.k Ldwy iz'kklu izkFkhZ ls dkQh
vkSj fp<+k gqvk gSA bUgh lc ckr dks /;ku es j[krs
gq, fnukad 03-08-2021 dks izcU/kd ch0,y0 flag
iz/kkukpk;Z cq/kjkt iztkifr miiz/kkukpk;Z fodkl flag]
f'koe iVsy] pUny flag] jktho jatu vouh'k flag]
lkfgy lfgr vU; dbZ vKkr O;fDr jkf= djhc 0939 cts vpkud izkFkhZ ds vkokl ij vk;s vkSj dgk
fd ges vkils dqN ckrphr djuk gS ysfdu dqN nsj
ckn tc mldk mÌs'; ckrphr ls iwjk ugh gqvk rks
og izkFkhZ dks izyksHku nsus ds mÌs'; ls 5]00]000@&
vkWQj djus dh ckr dgh rks izkFkhZ us tokc nsrs gq,
dgk fd eSa cPpks ds Hkfo"; ds lkFk f[kyokM+ ugh dj
ldrk gwW vkSj vki bu iSlks dks okfil ys tkb;s rks
og yksx vkx ccwyk gks mBs vkSj dgk fd rqedks ns[k
ywaxk vkSj tku ls ejok nwaxk] lkjh gsdM+h fudy
tk;sxhA izkFkhZ us blls iwoZ fnukad 01-08-2021 dks ,d
izkFkZuk i= Fkkuk dksrokyh esa fn;k gS rFkk LihM iksLV
,oa Lo;a feydj Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ls
12 All. Bhaiya Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249
U;k; dh xqgkj yxkbZ gSA vr% Jheku th vkils
fuosnu gS fd mDr ekeys dh vius Lrj ls tkap
djokdj Ldwy izcU/kd o muds lHkh lkFkh tks lkFk
esa Fks mu lHkh ds f[kykQ izkFkhZ dks ?kwl nsus o tku
ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus ds f[kykQ ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ
djrs gq, ,oa cPpks ds Hkfo"; dks ns[krs gq, mfpr
dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsA fnukad
C4@vxLr@21 izkFkhZ g0 vxszth viBuh; 1⁄4lUrks"k
dqekj lksudj1⁄2 eks0 u0& 7800858200 mijksDr]
jkexksiky 8454677895] rakesh yadav9170875787]
xk;=h nsoh 9044833233] uksV&,QvkbZvkj ys[kd gs0
dk0 eks0 guhQ o lhlhVh,u,l dehZ e0 dk0 lhek
oekZA "

7. In support of aforesaid contentions,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that with intention to trap and deceive the
appellant, the complainant tried to establish
that he invited and welcomed the appellant
at his house and subsequently plotted a
false and fabricated story. The alleged
incident is not only false and fabricated but
also based on factually incorrect facts,
whereby it was alleged in the F.I.R. that the
appellant had failed more than 70 students
in
Class
XIIth
Board
Examination
conducted by C.B.S.E., however, the fact is
that only 11 students were failed and 23
students
were
required
to
write
compartment examination. List of the
students who failed or write compartment
examination declared by the C.B.S.E. is
being quoted hereunder:-

S.
No
.
Students
Name
Status
in
30/07/2
021
Comp.
Exam
Status
in
16/02/
2022
1.
Ayushma
n Singh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
2.
Vaibhav
Vikram
Singh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
3.
Dheeru
Yadav
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Failed
(comp
.)
4.
Kavita
Verma
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
5.
Ashish
Singh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
6. Niteesh
Kumar
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
7.
Himansh
u Yadav
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
8.
Ambuj
Patel
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
9.
Adarsh
Kannauji
a
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
10. Adarsh
Yadav
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
11. Priyanshi
Tiwari
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
12. Goldee
Maurya
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
13. Khusi
Yadav
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
14. Muskan
Soni
Comp.
Not
appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
(In
disput
e
settle
ment)
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. Kalyani
Mishra
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
16. Adarsh
Shukla
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
17. Abhinav
Singh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
18. Dipika
Patel
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
19. Deepanja
li Singh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
20. Saroj
Muskan
Rakesh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
21. Sarthak
Singh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
22. Vinay
Singh
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
23. Abhishek
Yadav
Comp.
Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
24. Arjun
Verma
Comp.
Not
appear in
Comp.
Exam
Fail
25. Ankit Pal Comp.
Not
appear in
Comp.
Exam
Fail
26. Ritesh K.
Sonkar
Ess.rep
.
Not
appear
in comp.
Exam
In
result
of
30.07.
2021
Chem
istry28
Math
s-32
After
disput
e
settle
ment
Math
s-38
Chem
istry
28
(Com
p.)
27. Kirti
Vardhan
Singh
Ess.rep. Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Fail
28. Yuvraj
Singh
Ess.rep. Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
29. Raj Singh
Yadav
Ess.rep. Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Faile
d
30. Akshay
Kumar
Ess.rep. Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Faile
d
31. Deepak
Kumar
Ess.rep. Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Faile
d
32. Aadya
Tiwari
Ess.rep. Not
appear in
comp.
exam
Fail
33. Anshika
Ess.rep. Appear in
Comp.
Exam
Pass
34. Deepa
Singh
Ess.rep. Not
appear in
Passe
d
(in
12 All. Bhaiya Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
comp.
exam
disput
e
settle
ment)
Result Date-30.07.2021
Total Students-140
Total Comp-23
Total Essential Repeat-11
Total Pass-106
Send Dispute Settlement Type-2 Request40
Pass in Dispute Settlement-21
Result Date 16.02.2022
Passed-129
Essential Repeat-09
Comp.-02

It is further submitted that no such
offer of Rs.5,00,000/- was ever made by the
appellant to the respondent No.3 and there
is no such occasion to offer such an amount
to the respondent No.3 but the respondent
No.3 only to give gravity to the alleged
offence has made false allegation in the
F.I.R. that the appellant offered such an
amount to the respondent No.3 to pacify
the matter, even though, there was no
independent witness to support the alleged
allegation. The respondent No.3 also did
not mention any independent witness, who
was present at the time of alleged incident,
thus, the story as narrated appears to be
unbelievable and only made with an
intention to falsely implicate the appellant
alongwith other accused persons to defame
the image of the institution.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that on the same day i.e.
04.08.2021, the appellant by means of an email dated 04.08.2021, requested the CBSE
to re-assess and increase the marks of the
students, who were failed or had to write
compartment examination, considering the
future of the aforesaid students. The
appellant by means of the aforesaid e-mail
dated 04.08.2021 submitted the list of
failed students which includes the name of
the son of the respondent no.3, as such, the
appellant gave sincere efforts to improve
the result of the failed students keeping in
mind the future of the students. The
contents of the aforesaid e-mail is being
quoted hereunder:-

Þlsok esa]

Jheku {ks=h; vf/kdkjh

35B, CIVIL STATION

MG ROAD, CIVIL LINES

PRAYAGRAJ, U.P.211001

egksn;]

lfou; voxr djkuk gS fd gekjs
fo|ky; dk lhfu;j lsdsUMjh ijh{kk 2021 dk ifj.kke
fnukad 30@07@2021 dks ?kksf"kr gqvk FkkA ftlesa
REFERENCE YEAR POLICY dh otg ls
gekjs 11 Nk=@Nk+=k,a vuqRrh.kZ gSa rFkk 23
Nk=@Nk=kvksa dk COMPARTMENT vk x;k gSA
ftlls Nk=@Nk+=k,a] vfHkHkkod rFkk fo|ky; vR;ar
O;fFkr gSA

egksn; ls vuqjks/k gS fd mDr Nk=@Nk=kvksa ds
Hkfo"; dks ns[krs gq, muds vadksa esa c<+ksRrjh dh tk;s
rFkk mudks mRrh.kZ Js.kh esa yk;k tk;A mDr
Nk=@Nk=kvksa dk fooj.k fuEu izdkj gSa%&

Failed Students:-
Name
Fathers' Name
Roll No.
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Arjun
Verma
Rajesh Verma
23716035
Ankit Pal
Ram Naresh Pal
23716036
Ritesh
Kumar
Sonkar
Santosh
Kumar
Sonkar
23716037
Anshika
Ram Prakash
23716055
Deepa
Singh
Raju Singh
23716056
Kirti
Vardhan
Singh
Sandeep
Pt.
Singh
23716071
Yuvraj
Singh
Rituraj Singh
23716082
Raj Singh
Yadav
Mahesh
23716089
Akshay
Kumar
Sunil Agrahri
23716097
Deepak
Kumar
Sundar Lal Yadav 23716008
Aadya
Tiwari
Kulshresth
Narayan Tiwari
23716111
Compartment Students
Ayushman
Singh
Ajit Pratap Singh 23715973
Vaibhav
Vikram
Maurya
Rajesh
Kumar
Maurya
23715975
Abhishek
Yadav
Ram Lal Yadav
23715978
Dheeru
Yadav
Ram
Bahadur
Yadav
23715979
Kavita
Verma
Suresh Verma
23715980
Ashish
Singh
Satrohan Singh
23715987
Niteesh
Kumar
Satyam Yadav
23716015
Himanshu
Yadav
Suresh Yadav
23716019
Ambuj
Patel
Shivakant
23716033
Adarsh
Kanojiya
Shiv Kanojiya
23716047
Adarsh
Yadav
Gyan Dev Yadav 23716048
Goldee
Maurya
Surendra Kumar
23716050
Khushi
Yadav
Ganga
Prasad
Yadav
23716052
Muskan
Soni
Makhan Lal
23716054
Kalyani
Mishra
Sanjay Mishra
23716057
Adarsh
Shukla
Rupesh
Kumar
Shukla
23716058
Abhinav
Singh
Satendra Singh
23716060
Dipika
Patel
Ashok Kumar
23716065
Dipanjali
Singh
Brijesh
Kumar
Singh
23716068
Saroj
Muskan
Rakesh
Rakesh
GurudeenSaroj
23716074
Sarthak
Singh
Deshraj Singh
23716075
Vinay
Singh
Sankarbux Singh 23716079
Priyanshi
Tiwari
Gyanchandra
Tiwari
23716105

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that since the respondent
12 All. Bhaiya Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
no.3 continued to carry protest, which was
causing
disturbance
in
the
smooth
functioning and educational activities of the
school, therefore, the school wrote a letter
dated 06.08.2021 to the concerned Police
Station. The said letter is being quoted
hereunder:-

"lsok esa]

Jheku dksrokyh izHkkjh

lnj dksrokyh] jk;cjsyh]

egksn;

lfou; fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 6
vxLr 2021 dks baVj dh ijh{kk 2021 esa vlQy
Nk=&Nk=k,a rFkk daikVZesaV ds Nk=&Nk=kvksa gsrq
baizwoesaV ijh{kk rFkk lh-ch-,l-bZ- n~okjk xfBr dh xbZ
lsVyesaV desVh ds laca/k esa voxr djkus gsrq
vfHkHkkodksa ,oa Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks cqyk;k x;k FkkA
fdUrq izkr% 9%30 cts yxHkx 150 vjktd rRoks n~okjk
ukjsckth dj jgs Fks fon~;ky; dk eq[; xsV rksM+rs gq,
vanj izos'k fd, rFkk fon~;ky; ds 'kh'ks o f[kM+fd;ka
rksM+ fn;k x;k vkSj xkyh xykSt o eqnkZckn ds ukjs
yxk, x,A muds n~okjk fon~;ky; dh efgyk
v/;kfidkvks ds lkFk vHknzrk dk O;ogkj djrs gq,
vkSj muds lkFk /kDdk&eqDdh dh xbZ gS ftldh
lhlhVhoh dh QqVst gS le; vkus ij izLrqr fd;k tk
ldrk gSA

fon~;ky; dk leLr LVkQ ,oa izca/kd vkt dh
bl ?kVuk ls vR;ar Hk;Hkhr gSa rFkk bu ifjfLFkr;ksa esa
dk;Z ugha dj ldrs gSaA

9 vxLr 2021 ls cksMZ ds baizwoesaV gsrq ijh{kkvksa
ds QkWeZ Hkjs tkus gSa ftlds fy, ;fn fon~;ky; dk
dksbZ LVkQ mifLFkr jgrk gS rks vjktd rRoksa n~okjk
mls uk rks dk;Z djus fn;k tk;sxk vkSj uk gh mldh
tku dh lqj{kk jgsxhA egksn; ls vuqjks/k gS fd vKkr
rRoksa ds fo:) izkFkfedh ntZ djrs gq, lqj{kk iznku
djus gsrq d`ik djsaA

g0 viBuh;

6@8@21

izca/kd

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd Ldwy

veksy fogkj] jk;cjsyhA"

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that on 08.08.2021, the
appellant issued a notice for the students
who could not pass the XIIth Board
Examination,
informing
the
aforesaid
students
to
submit
a
complaint
/
explanation to the Principal in case they are
not satisfied with results. The contents of
the aforesaid notice is being quoted
hereunder:-

"dsUnzh; ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ ds ldqZyj ua&

CBSE/CE/Dispute.resolution/2021@2
021 fnukad 08-08-2021 CBSE dh oSclkbV ij
miyC/k1⁄2 n~okjk lwpuk tkjh dj ijh{kkQy ds fookn
dks lqy>kus gsrq fn'kk funsZ'k tkjh fd, gSA

Dispute regarding computation of
result ds vuqlkj tks fon~;kFkhZ d{kk 12 1⁄42020&211⁄2
ijh{kkQy ls larq"V ugha gS] og fon~;ky; ds
iz/kkukpk;Z dks viuh f'kdk;r izLrqr djus dh vafre
frfFk 11-08-2021 rd izLrqr dj ldrs gSA

izca/kd

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd Ldwy

veksy fogkj] jk;cjsyhA

izca/kd

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd Ldwy

veksy fogkj] jk;cjsyhA"

11. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the appellant as well
as Principal of the School vide letter dated
21.08.2021 forwarded all the complaints /
explanation received by the failed students
to the Regional Officer, CBSE Prayagraj
with request to decide the aforesaid
applications. The contents of the aforesaid
letter is being quoted hereunder:-

"izs"kd izca/kd

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd Ldwy

jk;cjsyh

lsok esa

Regional Officer,

35 B, Civil Station,

MG Road, Civil Lines,

Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211001

fo"k; & fon~;ky; dks fookfnr type-2 ds
varxZr izkIr izkFkZuk i=ksa dks izs"k.k
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

egksn;k]

fuosnu gS fd gekjs esy fnukad 12@08@2021
dks lanHkZ ysa ftlds varxZr fon~;ky; esa fookfnr
type-2 ds varxZr izkIr izkFkZuk i=ksa dks bafxr fd;k
x;k FkkA fnukad 19@08@2021 ds varxZr izkFkZuk
i=ksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;k FkkA

fon~;ky; dks fookfnr type-2 ds varxZr izkIr
dqy d{kk 12 ds 40 1⁄4pkyhl1⁄2 izkFkZuk i=ksa dks ewy :i
ls izsf"kr fd, tk jgsa gSA

blds lkFk gh d{kk 10 ds Nk=@Nk=kvksa n~okjk
fookfnr type-2 ds varxZr izkIr 43 1⁄4rSrkfyl1⁄2
izkFkZuk i= Hkh fuLrkj.k gsrq vkidh lsok esa izsf"kr fd,
tk jgs gSA d`i;k vki bUgs fuLrkfjr djokus dh d`ik
djsaA

layXud&

1- esy dkih fnukad 12@08@2021

2- i= fnukad 19@08@2021

3- d{kk 12 ds 40 izkFkZuk i=

4- d{kk 10 ds 43 izkFkZuk i=

g0 viBuh;

g0 viBuh;

 g0 viBuh;

izca/kd
 izca/kd

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd

Ldwy jk;cjsyhA

ch-,l-,l- ifCyd

Ldwy

jk;cjsyhA

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that when the appellant
came to know about the present F.I.R.
lodged against him alongwith other staff
members, he immediately wrote a letter
dated 27.08.2021 to the Superintendent of
Police, Raebareli explaining the entire
incident as well as denying the allegation of
offering money to respondent No.3 and
other contents of the F.I.R.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the respondent no.3
preferred a Writ Petition before this
Hon'ble Court bearing Writ Petition
No.22209 (M/S) of 2021 (Ritesh Kumar
Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Ors.),
wherein son of the respondent no.3 was
arrayed as petitioner, seeking a writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to
decide the representation dated 11.08.2021
of the petitioner and to correct the
assessment of marks of the Petitioner. The
Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of
the aforesaid Writ Petition vide judgment
and order dated 01.10.2021, directing the
Principal, B.S.S. Public School, Raebareli
to
decide
the
representation
of
the
petitioner and submit all the documents to
CBSE for further action within a stipulated
period of two weeks. The aforesaid order of
this Hon'ble High Court is being quoted
hereunder:-

"1.
Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner, Sri Shashank Bhaseen, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2 to 4, Ms.
Pushpila Bist, learned counsel for Union of
India and learned Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. Petitioner, who was a student of
Class-XII was covered by the policy of the
C.B.S.E. Board dated 17.06.2021 for the
purposes of declaration of his result as per
the policy especially prepared for the
Covid-19 year. Petitioner was not satisfied
with his result and therefore, made a
representation before the principal under
the said policy dated 17.06.2021 and
circular dated 08.08.2021. Before the
principal
could
decide
the
said
representation as per the aforesaid policy,
all the record due to the large number of
complaints was seized by the District
Magistrate,
Raibareli.
Therefore,
representation of the petitioner could not be
decided on merits.

3. Admittedly, the said policy provides
that in case principal finds favour with the
petitioner and finds some discrepancy with
the result he shall forward the same to the
Board.
12 All. Bhaiya Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255

4. Learned counsel for respondent
Board and Union of India submit that
respondents have no objection in case
principal of the institution decides the
representation
of
the
petitioner
in
accordance with the policy and circular.

5. For the said purposes, the District
Magistrate, Raibareli is directed to hand
over record of the petitioner to the
principal of the institution. The principal
shall decide the representation of the
petitioner within a period of two weeks
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order before him.

6. In case principal finds favour with
the petitioner, he shall forward the
documents of the petitioner to respondent
no.4 Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. Regional
Office, Prayagraj, 35 Mahatma Gandhi
Road, Civil Lines, Prayagraj as well as the
Committee constituted, who shall take final
decision on the same as per the aforesaid
policy and circular. The entire exercise
shall be completed within a period of one
month from today.

7. With the aforesaid, present writ
petition is disposed of. "

14. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that in compliance of the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
01.10.2021, the Principal, B.S.S. Public
School,
Raebareli
vide
letter
dated
19.10.2021 submitted a detailed report of
the marks scored by the son of the
complainant in Class Xth, XIth and XIIth
to the CBSE.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the appellant vide letter
dated 08.11.2021 submitted all the original
documents to the CBSE i.e. marksheet, result
sheet, answer copies, etc. of the son of the
respondent no.3 in order to further make it
convenient for the C.B.S.E. Board to assess
the correct marks of the son of the respondent
no.3.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the appellant made
sincere efforts to qualify the son of the
respondent no.3 in the Class XIIth Board
Examination, however, the respondent no.3
determined to harass the appellant and he
even did not allow his son to appear in the
compartment exams conducted by C.B.S.E.
Board, which could have allowed his son to
pass the Board Examination. Thus, the
complainant spared no effort to shatter the
image of the appellant and his school in the
society. It was the C.B.S.E. Board to take the
final decision regarding declaration of the
result of son of respondent No.3, the
appellant or any other staff have no
interference in the declaration of result as the
C.B.S.E. Board is the final authority.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that when the Investigating
Officer of the aforesaid case did not approach
the appellant as well as other persons named
in the aforesaid F.I.R. for recording their
statements, the appellant vide letter dated
15.01.2022 addressed to the Circle Officer,
Raebareli gave reference of the letter dated
27.08.2021 and requested the concerned
police officials to record his statement.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that since the respondent
no.3 was continuously protesting against
the school and was also physically hurting
the
staff
members,
therefore,
on
27.01.2022, the Principal of the School
lodged a complaint against the respondent
no.3 in Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Raebareli.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that despite repeated efforts
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the appellant to co-operate with the
investigation and writing numerous letters
to the concerned police station requesting
the Investigating Officer to record the
statement of the appellant, the appellant
was never called to record his statement
due to which the appellant, vide a notarized
affidavit dated 04.02.2022, submitted his
statement alongwith the evidence addressed
to the Superintendent of Police, Raebareli.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that when no effort was
taken by the police officials of the
concerned Police Station to record the
statement of the appellant even after
repeated efforts, the appellant was again
constrained to submit his statement by
means of a notarized affidavit dated
08.02.2022 to the Circle Officer, Raebareli
requesting therein to take appropriate
action as the appellant was continuously
being threatened by the respondent no.3.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that statement of the
informant i.e. respondent no.3, namely,
Santosh Kumar Sonkar was recorded on
15.08.2021 under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
wherein he reiterated the version of F.I.R.
The respondent no.3 further stated that
Ramgopal, Rakesh and Gayatri Devi were
witnesses of the alleged incident. The
statement of the respondent no.3 recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being quoted
hereunder:-

Ck;ku oknh & larks"k dqekj lksudj iq= Lo0
Jh jkecyh fuoklh& 277@15 izHkq Vmu Fkkuk
dksrokyhuxj tuin jk;cjsyh us crk;k fd eSa
ch0,l0,l0 ifCyd Ldwy iz'kklu }kjk d{kk 12 ds
lh0ch0,l0lh0 cksMZ ds 70 cPpksa dks Qsy fd;s
tkus ds ckn mUgsa U;k; fnykus ds fy;s iwjh rjg ls
rRij gS vkSj cPpksa ds vfHkHkkod ds :i esa Ldwy
iz'kklu ls cPpksa dks U;k; fnykus dh ckr yxkrkj
djrk gw¡ ftlds dkj.k Ldwy i'kklu eq>ls dkQh
fp<+k gqvk gS bUgh lc ckr ds dkj.k fnukad&03-082021 dks izcU/kd ch0,y0 flag] iz/kkukpk;Z cq/kjkt
izHkkifr mi iz/kkukpk;Z fodkl flag] f'koe iVsy]
pUnju flag] jktho jatu] vouh'k flag] lkfgy
lkfgr vU; dbZ vKkr O;fDr jkr djhc 9%39 cts
vpkud esjs vkokl ij vk;s vkSj dgk fd gesa vki
ls dqN ckrphr djuk gS ysfdu dqN nsj ckn tc
mudk mn~ns'; ckrphr ls iwjk ugha gqvk rks os lc
yksx eq>s izyksHku nsus ds mn~ns'; ls 5]00]000 dk
vkWQj nsus dh ckr dgh rks eSa tokc nsrs gq;s dgk
fd cPpksa ds Hkfo"; ds lkFk f[kyokM+ ugha dj
ldrk gw¡ vkSj vki bu iSlksa dks okfil ys tkb;s rks
lHkh yksx vkx ccwyk gks x;s vkSj dgk fd rqedks
ns[k ywaxk vkSj tku ls ejok nwaxk lkjh gsdM+h
fudy tk,xh blls iwoZ fnukad& 01-08-2021 dks
,d izkFkZuk i= Fkkuk dksrokyh esa fn;k gS rFkk
LihM iksLV ,oa Loa; feydj Jheku~ iqfyl v/kh{kd
egksn; ls U;k; dh xqgkj yxkbZ Fkh lHkh yksxksa
}kjk tks cPpksa dh Hkfo"; cckZn dh tk jgh gS rFkk
?kwl nsus o tku ls ekj nsus dh /kedh nh xbZ gS
mlds laca/k esa fo|ky; esa i<+us okys vU;
vfHkHkkodksa jkexksiky] jkds'k] o xk;=h nsoh }kjk
Hkh fojks/k fd;k tk jgk gS ftl ds lEcU/k esa eSa
vkidks crk jgk gw¡ rFkk vko';drk iM+us ij eSa
viuk c;ku iqu% nwaxkA ;gh esjh c;ku gSA oknh
eqdnek ls mldk tkfr izek.k i= ekaxk x;k rks
ckn esa miyC/k djk;s tkus dh ckr dgh xbZA rFkk
viuk vk/kkj dkMZ miyC/k djk;k x;k ftls layXu
lhMh fd;k tk jgk gSA

22. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that on 25.08.2021, the
statements of the witnesses named by the
respondent no.3 were recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. However, it came to light that in
the list of witnesses named by the respondent
no.3, no witness with the name Rakesh exists.
The name given by the informant was
Ramgopal whereas the Investigating Officer
took the statement of witness namely Ram
Naresh, who has denied about having any
knowledge of the alleged incident and other
witness namely Gayatri Devi has not said
anything about the alleged incident. Both the
statements are being quoted hereunder:-

c;ku p'enhn xokg jkeujs'k iky iq= Lo0
jkev/khu iky fu0 dLck Fkkuk Hknks[kj tuin
12 All. Bhaiya Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
jk;cjsyh mez 51 o"kZ eks0ua0 9454677895 iwNus ij
crk jgs gSa fd ?kVuk fnukad 30 tqykbZ dks esjs yM+ds
vafdr iky dk fjtYV fudyk rks esjk yM+dk
bykgkckn esa ,u0Mh0,0 dh rS;kjh dj jgk Fkk esjk
yM+dk us Qksu fd;k fd ikik eSa rks Qsy gks x;k rks
eSus csVs dks bykgkckn ls cqyok fy;k mlds ckn eSa o
esjk yM+dk ch0,l0,l0 ifCyd Ldwy veksy fcgkj
x;k] rks eSus dk;kZy; esa eSustj lkgc dks iwNk rks
ugha feys rks ,d Vhpj fodkl flag ls esjh ckr gqbZ
vkSj fjtYV ds ckjs esa iwNk rks mUgksus dgk eq>s Qsy
djus dh jkbZV gS vkidks tgk¡ tkuk gS tk ldrs gSa
fd iz/kkukpk;Z o vius Dykl Vhpj ls laidZ djks rks
laidZ djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ijUrq lEidZ ugha gks
ldk vkSj ge yksx Mh0,e0 vkWfQl vk;s rFkk Mh0,e0
lkgc o Mh0vkbZ0vks0,l0 ls feyk fd esjs cPpksa ds
lkFk vU;k; gqvk gSA blds ckn eSustj us lsVyesV
QkeZ Hkjok;k fd ;fn vkidk cPpk xyr Qsy gqvk
gSA rks mls ikl dj fn;k tk;sxkA esjs cPps dk
fjtYV vHkh rd Bhd ugha gqvk gSA larks"k lksudj ds
?kj ij D;k ?kVuk gqbZ gS mlds ckjs esa eq>s dksbZ
tkudkjh ugha gSA ;gh esjk c;ku gSA

c;ku p'enhn xokg xk;=h nsoh iRuh Jh
KkupUnz frokjh fu0 usrkth lqHkk"k uxj dkuiqj jksM
Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj tuin jk;cjsyh mez 39 o'kZ eks0
9044833233 us crk;k fd esjh yM+dh fiz;ka'kw frokjh
ch0,l0,l0 ifCyd Ldwy esa d{kk 12 dh Nk=k gS esjh
yM+dh o vU; yM+dks dk tc fjtYV vk;k rks esjh
yM+dh dk fjtYV vksiu ugha gqvk rks Ldwy ls lEidZ
fd;k x;k rks Ldwy ds yksxksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd
vHkh izrh{kk dfj;s fjtYV vk tk;sxk fo|ky; }kjk
yxkrkj vk'oklu fn;k tk jgk gSA ijUrq vHkh fjtYV
ugha vk;k gSA lkbUl ds Nk=ksa dk dkQh la[;k esa
fjtYV esa lq/kkj gks x;k gSA lEidZ djus ij fo|ky;
}kjk ,d nwljs ij Vky fn;k tkrk gSA rFkk fo|ky;
}kjk dgk tkrk Fkk fd dksfpax ugha djksxs rks ikl
ugha gks ikvksxhA ;gh esjk c;ku gSA

The above two independent witnesses
namely-Ram Naresh and Gayatri Devi have
not supported the case established by
respondent No.3

23. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that as per the version
stated in the F.I.R., there is no mention
about the presence of wife, namelyPoonam Sonkar, daughter, namely-Prachi
Sonkar and son, namely-Ritesh Sonkar of
the respondent No.3 at the place of alleged
incident. He further submitted that the
Investigating
Officer
recorded
the
statements of wife of respondent No.3,
namely-Poonam Sonkar in her statement
she has slightly modified the version of the
F.I.R.
and
stated
that
the
appellant
alongwith other persons came outside the
house of the respondent No.3 and offered
money and also threatened her husband i.e.
respondent No.3 with dire consequences
but she has not stated anything that the
appellant with other persons have abused
the respondent No.3 with caste language in
a place within public view. Even though,
the daughter and son of the respondent
No.3 have also stated the same version
which their mother has earlier stated in her
statement.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the version of the
F.I.R. was changed by the wife, daughter
and son of the respondent No.3, in which
they have clearly stated that the appellant
alongwith other persons came outside their
house, thus, it transpires that the statements
made by the wife, daughter and son of the
respondent No.3 were after thought and
made only with the intention to bring the
present case within the purview of
provisions of SC/ST Act whereas, as per
the version of the F.I.R., the appellant
alongwith other accused persons were
present inside the house of respondent
No.3, where the alleged incident happened.
Thus, story appears to be improbable and
unbelievable. The statements of wife,
daughter and son of the respondent No.3 is
annexed as Annexure No.RA-1 to the
rejoinder affidavit dated 31.10.2023, which
is on record.

25. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the statement of the
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded on 01.11.2021, wherein the
appellant has allegedly denied to give any
statement except in the Court in presence of
his Advocate as per the version of the
chargesheet.
In
this
context,
learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the
said statement was recorded by the
Investigating Officer on his own in the
absence or knowledge of the appellant, no
any such statement was ever taken by the
Investigating Officer.

26. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the appellant has not
committed any offence as alleged by the
respondent No.3 and from a bare perusal of
the evidence collected by the Investigating
Officer, it is crystal clear that the appellant
has not participated in the alleged offence.
The chargesheet under Section 143 and 506
I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(Dha) of the
Act,
1989
has
been
filed
by
the
Investigating Officer in a mechanical
manner without considering the material
and evidence on record.

27. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that no offence under
Section 143, 506 I.P.C. and under Section
3(1)(Dha) of Act, 1989 is made out against
the appellant. According to the statement
given by the complainant under Section
161 Cr.P.C., the said meeting took place
inside the house of respondent No.3.
During said meeting, the appellant had not
abused the complainant/informant by caste
name and as per the own case of the
respondent No.3, the appellant used the
following words:-

"..........izkFkhZ ds vkokl ij vk;s vkSj dgk fd
ges vkils dqN ckrphr djuk gS ysfdu dqN nsj ckn
tc mldk mÌs'; ckrphr ls iwjk ugh gqvk rks og
izkFkhZ dks izyksHku nsus ds mÌs'; ls 5]00]000@& vkWQj
djus dh ckr dgh rks izkFkhZ us tokc nsrs gq, dgk fd
eSa cPpks ds Hkfo"; ds lkFk f[kyokM+ ugh dj ldrk gwW
vkSj vki bu iSlks dks okfil ys tkb;s rks og yksx
vkx ccwyk gks mBs vkSj dgk fd rqedks ns[k ywaxk vkSj
tku ls ejok nwaxk] lkjh gsdM+h fudy tk;sxhA
.............."

It is thus, submitted that utterances of
disparaging remark, if any, have been made
inside the house of respondent No.3, which
is not a public place nor within the public
view, therefore, no offence under Section
3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act will be made
out against the appellant. Even though,
none of the prosecution witnesses, namelyRam Naresh and Gayatri Devi have
supported the case of the respondent No.3,
Ram Naresh has denied any such incident
or about having any knowledge of such
incident and Gayatri Devi did not say
anything regarding the alleged incident,
however, the wife, daughter and son of the
respondent No.3 are interested witnesses
and they have given their statements only
to give gravity to the alleged incident and
stated that the incident took place outside
the house but have not stated that any
public was present at the time of alleged
incident.

28. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the impugned order
dated 07.02.2022 passed by learned Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli, by which
cognizance was taken and the appellant
was summoned, is also non speaking as the
Magistrate has not considered any material
available before him while summoning the
appellant to face the trial. As such, the
impugned order dated 07.02.2022 on the
face of record appears to be unjustified and
is passed without application of judicial
mind, therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside and further proceedings in pursuance
to the above case may also be quashed by
12 All. Bhaiya Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
this Court and the present appeal be
allowed.

29. In support of his arguments,
learned Counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on following judgments of
Hon'ble Apex:-

"(i) Hitesh Verma vs. State of
Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC
710.

(ii) Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs.
State of U.P. and Another reported in SCC
OnLine SC 668.

(iii) Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of
Uttranchal and Another repored in (2008)
17 SCC 157.

(iv) Ankit vs. State of U.P. and
Another reported in JIC 2010 (1) Page
432.

(v) State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal
reported in 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426."

30. Shri Vaibhav Kalia, learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 has
opposed the arguments raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant and has
submitted that offences under Section 143
and 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(dha)
of SC/ST Act are made out against the
appellant. As per the version of the F.I.R.
the
appellant
had
abused
the
complainant/informant with caste words
outside the house, where other persons
were present, therefore, offence under
Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act will be
made out against the appellant.