# Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 29
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2263 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-gupta-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50771
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 161, 228 & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323,
354, 354-Kha, 427, 452, 504 & 506 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w),
3(1)(v), 3(1)(va), 3(2)(v-a), 14-A & 14A(1) - Appeal - for quashing the chargesheet &
summoning order - Application U/s 1456 (3)
Cr.P.C. - Allegations of assault, abuse, and
threats made by the accused against the
informant
and
her
mother-in-law,
who
belong to a scheduled caste - investigated -
chargesheet - Summoning order - appellants
argued that the allegations were false and
motivated since a land dispute pending
between the parties - Evaluation of Evidence
- Court found that, the FIR and St.ments did
not provide specific details of the casterelated
insults
and
that
the
incident
appeared to be related to a land dispute
rather than caste-based discrimination -
Hence, court partially allowed the appeal,
quashing the summoning order under the
SC/ST Act but allowing the trial court to
proceed for the charges framed under the
IPC against the appellants after affording
opportunity of hearing to the both sides,
directions issued accordingly - however, the
appellants will be at liberty to file discharge
application for those charges before the trial
court. (Para - 9, 10, 11, 12)

Appeals are partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29

19. Let the appellants, Jose Papachen and
Sheeja, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.
0031/2023, under Section 3 and 5 (1) of Uttar
Pradesh Prohibition of Conversion of Religion
Act, 2021 and Section 3 (1) (Dha) SC/ST Act,
Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar
with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellants shall furnish a
personal bond with two sureties each of like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(ii) The appellants shall appear and
strictly comply following terms of bond executed
under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of
Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellants shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellants shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which they are
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which they are suspected, and

(c) The appellants shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with
the evidence.

(iii) The appellants shall cooperate with
investigation /trial.

(iv) The appellants shall file an
undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of
default of this condition, it shall be open for the
trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and
pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The appellants shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through their counsel. In case of their
absence, the trial court may proceed against them
under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellants misuse the
liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure their
presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the appellants fail to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings against
them, in accordance with law, under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellants shall remain
present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for
(i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and
(iii) recording of statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence
of the appellants is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to
treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
proceed against them in accordance with law.

20. It is clarified that the observations, if any,
made in this order are strictly confined to the
disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be
construed to have any reflection on the ultimate
merit of the case.

21. The trial court is also directed to
expedite the trial of the aforesaid case,
within a period of one year from today, by
following the provisions of Section 309
Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in
case there is no other legal impediment.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 29
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2263 of 2023

Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Skand Bajpai
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 161, 228 & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323,
354, 354-Kha, 427, 452, 504 & 506 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w),
3(1)(v), 3(1)(va), 3(2)(v-a), 14-A & 14A(1) - Appeal - for quashing the chargesheet &
summoning order - Application U/s 1456 (3)
Cr.P.C. - Allegations of assault, abuse, and
threats made by the accused against the
informant
and
her
mother-in-law,
who
belong to a scheduled caste - investigated -
chargesheet - Summoning order - appellants
argued that the allegations were false and
motivated since a land dispute pending
between the parties - Evaluation of Evidence
- Court found that, the FIR and St.ments did
not provide specific details of the casterelated
insults
and
that
the
incident
appeared to be related to a land dispute
rather than caste-based discrimination -
Hence, court partially allowed the appeal,
quashing the summoning order under the
SC/ST Act but allowing the trial court to
proceed for the charges framed under the
IPC against the appellants after affording
opportunity of hearing to the both sides,
directions issued accordingly - however, the
appellants will be at liberty to file discharge
application for those charges before the trial
court. (Para - 9, 10, 11, 12)

Appeals are partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 668, ,

2. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttrakhand & anr.,
(2020) 10 SCC 710,

3.
B.
Venkateswaran
&
ors.
Vs
P.
Bakthavatchalam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 14,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 been filed by the
appellants
to
set
aside/quash
the
chargesheet filed in the case by police after
investigation against the appellants and set
aside the summoning order dated 17.5.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District
Gonda, in Sessions Trial No.453 of 2023,
arising out of Case Crime No.0125 of 2023,
under Sections 323, 354-Kha, 427, 452,
504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da),
3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST
Act, State vs. Harishchandra and others.

3. As per the office report dated
15.9.2023, notice issued by this Court has
been served on respondent No.2 but none
appeared on her behalf to press present
criminal appeal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the
informant
Smt.
Kanchan
moved
an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)
for registration of case and investigation by
police with averments that the applicant
belongs to scheduled caste and a poor lady.
The accused persons are influential and
powerful persons. There is enmity of land
dispute between the informant and accused
persons. The accused persons are trying to
grab her land and to achieve this object, on
28.9.2022, at about 12:00 hours in the day
they came to the house of informant armed
with clubs, sticks and farsa. They started
abusing her, gave beating to her mother-inlaw and extended threat of life to her. When
the informant went to save her mother-in-
9 All. Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31
law, they started beating her and torn her
blouse. The informant came inside her
home to save her life, the accused persons
trespassed into the house by pushing the
door and insulted the applicant and her
mother-in-law by using caste specific
words. They also abused her and stated to
get the house vacated. They began
damaging the households and also threw
the some goods outside. The localites came
and intervened, then the accused persons
went away with threatening to vacate the
land. Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
directed
registration
of
a
case
and
investigation on said application. Police
investigated the case and filed chargesheet
against accused persons under Sections
504, 506, 323, 354-Kha, 452, 427 IPC and
Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w) and
3(2)(v-a) by finding complicity of accused
persons. Learned Special Judge took
cognizance of the offence on the basis of
chargesheet against present appellants and
issued
summons
to
them
for
their
appearance to face trial vide order dated
17.5.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the ingredients of Sections
3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) are not made out in the
case. The injuries of informant and her
mother-in-law as shown in their respective
injury reports are of simple in nature. There
is no description of contents or the words
allegedly used by the appellants to insult
the informant and her mother-in-law by
using that they belong to scheduled caste. A
perusal of FIR and statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. do not countenance the allegations
that the accused persons assaulted or
committed any offending act against the
informant or her mother-in-law by only
reason that they belong to scheduled caste.
In fact the appellants have been falsely
implicated in the case due to land dispute
between the family of informant and
accused persons. An FIR antecedent in time
to present FIR at the instant of Naina Devi,
mother of the appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 was
lodged on 28.9.2022, vide Crime No.413 of
2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
against Suresh and Brhmadan, who are
relatives of present informant and present
case is counter blast of said FIR dated
28.9.2022 and in that case also, chargesheet
has been filed on 7.10.2022. An application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by
the
informant
in
present
case
on
18.10.2022, in which the incident of same
date is shown, thus both the cases may be
treated as cross-case. Learned counsel for
the
appellant
placed
reliance
on
a
judgement of Apex Court in Ramesh
Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 668, wherein Apex Court in SLP filed
against dismissal of application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the appellants above
cited judicial pronouncements in a cases
under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section
3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act placed reliance on its
previous judgement passed in Hitesh Verma
vs. State of Uttrakhand and Another, (2020)
10 SCC 710 and observed in paragraph
No.18 as under:-

"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
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. Even if the same be
directed generally to a person, who
happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe,
per se, it may not be sufficient to attract
section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced
with casteist remarks. Since section 18 of
the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the
court?s jurisdiction under section 438,
Cr.PC and having regard to the overriding
effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it is
desirable that before an accused is
subjected to a trial for alleged commission
of offence under section 3(1)(x), the
utterances made by him in any place within
public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R.
(which
is
not
required
to
be
an
encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but
at least in the charge-sheet (which is
prepared based either on statements of
witnesses
recorded
in
course
of
investigation or otherwise) so as to enable
the court to ascertain whether the charge
sheet makes out a case of an offence under
the SC/ST Act having been committed for
forming a proper opinion in the conspectus
of the situation before it, prior to taking
cognisance of the offence. Even for the
limited test that has to be applied in a case
of the present nature, the charge-sheet
dated 21 st January, 2016 does not make
out any case of an offence having been
committed by the appellant under section
3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
next placed reliance on a judgement of
Apex Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of
Uttrakhand and Another, (2020) 10 SCC
710, wherein Apex Court in criminal appeal
filed against the order of Uttrakhand High
Court passed in an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. observed in paragraph
Nos.13 and 15 as under:-

"13. The offence under Section
3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the
ingredient
of
intentional
insult
and
intimidation with an intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled
Tribe.
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 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.
9 All. Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33

15.
As
per
the
FIR,
the
allegations of abusing the informant were
within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was
any member of the public (not merely
relatives or friends) at the time of the
incident in the house. Therefore, the basic
ingredient that the words were uttered ?in
any place within public view? is not made
out. In the list of witnesses appended to the
charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named
but it could not be said that those were the
persons present within the four walls of the
building. The offence is alleged to have
taken place within the four walls of the
building. Therefore, in view of the judgment
of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be
said to be a place within public view as
none was said to be present within the four
walls of the building as per the FIR and/or
charge-sheet."

7. In B. Venkateswaran and Others
vs. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 14, Hon'ble Apex Court set
aside the impugned order passed by High
Court of Madras under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
wherein the High Court refused to quash
the criminal proceeding instituted by the
private respondent against the petitioner for
offence under Section 3(1)(v) and (va) of
SC/ST (P.A.) Act. Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that "It appears that a private
dispute was going on between the parties
with respect to the illegal construction. As
per the allegations in the complaint, the
original complainant had purchased the
vacant land and constructed the building. In
the
entire
complaint,
there
are
no
allegations
that
the
complainant
is
obstructed
and
/ or
interfered
with
enjoyment of his right on his property
deliberately and willfully knowing that
complainant belongs to SC/ST. From the
material on record, it appears that a civil
dispute is converted into criminal dispute
and that too for the offence under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. It seems that the private civil
dispute between the parties is converted
into criminal proceedings. Initiation of the
criminal proceedings for the offences under
Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
therefore, is nothing but an abuse of
process of law and Court.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed
the prayer made in present criminal
revision and submitted that the judgement
cited by learned counsel for the revisionist
given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in orders
passed by concerned High Court on
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He also
submitted that second prayer made by the
appellant
in
present
appeal
is
not
cognizable in criminal appeal as that relates
to quashment of chargesheet, which can
only be challenged in proceeding under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. He next submitted that
all the grounds taken in present appeal may
be taken by the appellant in application
under
Section
228
Cr.P.C.
seeking
discharge before the trial court. Learned
counsel for the appellants further submitted
that the relief sought in present appeal are
not barred under law and this Court is
empowered to consider the same and pass
the appropriate orders in present criminal
appeal.

9. Considering the rival submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties,
facts and circumstances of the case,
allegations leveled against the appellants
and material on record, this court find that
in FIR a general allegation has been made
by he informant that the accused persons at
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the time of incident insulted the informant
and her mother-in-law by using caste
specific words but the contents of those
words are not divulged in FIR, even in
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the
contents of those caste specific words were
not disclosed. The incident of abusing,
assaulting, threatening are alleged to have
occurred outside and inside the house of the
informant and there is no allegations either
in FIR or in statement of victims under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused persons
had insulted them in public view by using
caste specific words.

10. There appears land dispute
between the parties before the day of
incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the informant or her mother-in-law were
assaulted or abused or threatened by the
accused persons only due to the fact that
they belong to scheduled caste. This Court
is of the considered opinion that the charge
under Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w)
and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act are not made
out in the case against the present
appellants. Therefore, the summoning order
of the appellants in said provisions under
SC/ST Act is liable to be quashed. This
Court has not given any opinion with
regard to other charges under IPC and trial
may be commenced by the learned trial
court in accordance with law for those
charges. However, the appellants will be at
liberty to file discharge application for
those charges before learned court below, if
they consider it proper at appropriate stage
and it is expected that the same will be
considered and disposed of expeditiously,
of course, subject to provisions of bail
applicable in the case.

11. Accordingly, present appeal is
partly allowed and the summoning order
dated
17.5.2023
passed
by
learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), District Gonda for charge
under SC/ST Act is hereby quashed with
above observations.

12. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District
Gonda is at liberty to frame charges under
IPC against the appellants after affording
opportunity of hearing to both sides and in
case charges are framed, the case will be
remanded to learned CJM concerned for
trial.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 34
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2620 of 2023

Urmila Singh Chauhan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Kirti Prakash Singh, Karan Veer Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 -Section 323, 504 & 506 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Sections - 3(1)(da)(dha) & 18- Appeal -
for set aside the impugned order, rejecting the
anticipatory Bail - FIR - Allegations are that the
informant was asked to vacate the house in
which they were living on rent - The informant
received the order for vacation from the officer
concerned - One-third portion of the house was
allotted to the appellant, while another one-