# Faujdar Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 322
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 34372 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajeev Bharti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/faujdar-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53993
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 1 ILRA 322
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 34372 of 2016

Faujdar Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Legality of proceedings u/s 3(1)Da, Dha & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act

Headnotes
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-Neither the FIR nor the
charge sheet specifies the exact caste-related words allegedly used- nor does it disclose intention to humiliate
the informant - no independent public witness-not in public place-mandatory statutory requirement- abuse of
process of the Court- proceedings under Sections 3(1)Da, Dha & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act quashed. Application
partly allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P. & Another, Criminal Appeal No.1617, (2023) 0 SC 550, decided
on 19.05.2023
2. Swaran Singh vs. State, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435
3. Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710
4. State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

List of Acts
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

List of Keywords
Caste-related words, place within public view, insult or intimidation.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kailash Pati Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Praveen Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Bharti, J.)

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present application has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated
07.07.2016, bearing charge sheet no.15/16 in Special Criminal Case No.96 of 2016 (State Vs.
1 All. Faujdar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
323
Faujdar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.317 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. &
3(1)Da, Dha & 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC/ST Act'), Police Station - Saidpur, District- Ghazipur, pending
in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghazipur.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.03.2016 an N.C.R. No.63 of 2016 was lodged at
Police Station- Saidpur, District- Ghazipur-under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. against the
applicants by the opposite party no.2 stating therein that on 17.03.2016, the applicants were
constructing drain in the field of opposite party no.2 forcefully and when the same being
opposed by opposite party no.2, the applicants abused him by using caste related words and
also assaulted his son with lathi and danda.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the invocation of the provisions of
SC/ST Act is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the essential statutory ingredients of the
alleged offence having been committed "in any place within public view" is completely
absent." It is contended that, as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged incident was only
witnessed by the informant Shyam Dev Gaud and his son Vinod Gaud, who are admittedly
interested and related witnesses and no independent member of the public was present at the
place of occurrence.

6. It is further argued that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet specifies the exact casterelated words allegedly used, nor does it disclose whether the alleged caste-related words, if
any, were made with intention to humiliate the informant on account of his caste and in a
place within the public view, which is mandatory statutory requirement for attracting
offences under SC/ST Act "in any place within public view".

7. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his argument has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P. &
Another, Criminal Appeal No.1617, (2023) 0 SC 550, decided on 19.05.2023, wherein it
has been held that every insult or intimidation does not constitute an offence under SC/ST
Act and that in the absence of any independent public witness and public view, continuance
of proceedings under SC/ST Act would amount of abuse of process of law.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in the case of Swaran Singh vs.
State, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435, that the expression "in any place within the public
view" does not mean merely a place accessible to the public, but requires the presence of
independent members and interested witness does not specify this requirement. Similarly in
Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the dispute occurring in a private place or where
any member of the public is present does not attract offence under Section 3(1) Da, Dha of
SC/ST Act.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance
upon in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supp (1) SCC 335, that if the contents of the FIR, taken on its face value, does not make out
any case against the appellant, such an FIR registered with ulterior motive deserves to be quashed.

10. For a ready reference Sections 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act are reproduced
hereinder:-

Provision in Hindi Bare Act of the SC/ST Act.
Provision in English Bare Act of SC/ST Act.

(द) अनुसूचचत िार्त या अनुसूचचत िनिार्त के
क्रकसी सदस्ट्य को अवमार्नत करने के आशय से
लोक दृजष्ट में आने वाले क्रकसी स्ट्थान पर
अपमार्नत या असभत्रस्ट्त करेगा;
Section
3(1)(r)
intentionally
insults
or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view;

(र्) लोक दृजष्ट में आने वाले क्रकसी स्ट्थान पर िार्त
के नाम से अनुसूचचत िार्त या अनुसूचचत
िनिार्त के क्रकसी सदस्ट्य को गाली गलौि करेगा;
Section 3(1) (s) abuses any member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste
name in any place within public view;
3(2) (va ) अनुसूची में पवर्नददतष्ट कोई अपरार्
क्रकसी व्यजक्त या संपपत्त के पवरुद्र्, यह िानते हुए
करेगा क्रक ऐसा व्यजक्त अनुसूचचत िार्त या
अनुसूचचत िनिार्त का सदस्ट्य है या वह संपपत्त
ऐसे सदस्ट्य की है, वह ऐसे अपरार्ों के सलए
भारतीय दंि संदहता के अर्ीन यथा पवर्नददतष्ट दंि
से दंिनीय होगा और िुमातने से भी दंिनीय होगा ।
Section 3(2) (va) commits any offence
specified in the Schedule, 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 such
punishment as specified under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall
also be liable to fine;

11. From a perusal of FIR and the charge sheet, this Court finds that specific caste-based
utterances are not disclosed; the alleged occurrence is supported only by the statement of the
informant and his son, who are interested witnesses, and no independent public witness is shown to
have been present at the time of alleged incident and the mandatory ingredients of intent to
humiliate in public view are conspicuously absent.

12. In view of the above facts and settled position of law, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act against the applicant would be an abuse of process of the Court and cannot be
sustainable in law.

13. Accordingly, the present application is partly allowed.

14. The proceedings of Special Criminal Case No.96 of 2016 (State Vs. Faujdar and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.317 of 2016, under Sections 3(1)Da, Dha & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act,
1 All. Kuldeep Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
325
Police Station - Saidpur, District- Ghazipur, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Ghazipur, are hereby quashed.

15. It is clarified that the proceeding with respect to the other sections related to Indian Penal
Code, if otherwise made out, may continue in accordance with law.
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 325
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 35779 of 2025

Kuldeep Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to "whether prima facie the allegations levelled by the victim on the applicant accused is
sufficient to proceed with the trial or continuance of the trial would amount to gross abuse of process of law?"
(Para-11)

Headnotes
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - S 69 - Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means - False
promise of marriage - Prima facie case - Allegation that accused "continuously entered in sexual
intercourse with the opposite party no. 2 on false promise of marriage, since last 11 years" -
Accused admittedly already married - Marriage certificate dated 24.04.2025 annexed - FIR dated
20.06.2025 - Whether continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process - Held, No -
Matter requires trial.
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - S 528 - Quashing of charge sheet - Scope of interference at pretrial stage - Where allegations and material disclose prima facie offence - Court would not
embark upon appreciation of evidence - Application dismissed.
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Ss 63, 64(2)(f), 69 - Deceitful means - Position of trust - Teacher
- Accused a teacher where victim pursued B.Ed. - Prima facie knowledge of subsisting marriage -
Distinction between 'false promise' and 'breach of promise' noted.
Held: The facts alleged in the F.I.R. and the material available on record on the face of it reveals the prima
facie facts that the victim is residing in the house of accused-applicant and was in relationship with the
accused-applicant since last 11 years - S 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides that 'Whoever, by
deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has
sexual intercourse with her... shall be punished - It is an admitted fact that the accused-applicant was already
married when he came in contact with opposite party no. 2 - In the present case, the applicant accused prima
facie knew from the beginning that he could not marry the opposite party no. 2, as he was already married -
On the basis of prima facie facts, this Court does not find sufficient ground to quash the charge sheet and the
proceedings. Hence, the application moved under S 528 B.N.S.S. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed
- The application under S 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (Paras-12, 15-22)

Case Law Cited