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

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 870
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indramani-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50410
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - The Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A(1) -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147,
323, 326-A, 504 and 3(1)X SC/ST ActChallenge to -summoning order u/s 3(1)X
SC/ST Act-Apex Court held in very clear
words that hurling abuses naming the
caste in the public place or at the place of
public view, would only constitute an
offence under SC/ST Act unless it is
established, the trial court has to judicially
scrutinize the factum that whether the
words spoken are in the public view or
public place-In the instant case, on cry of
the family members of the complainant ,
the village persons reached inside the
house and they saw that the accused
persons are beating and hurling abuses to
the family members inside the house
which is admittedly not a public place-
5 All. Indramani Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
871
Thus, the learned trial court did not apply
its
judicial
mind
while
issuing
the
summons against the applicants u/s 3(1)X
of
SC/ST
Act-Resultantly,
summoning
order is set aside to the extent of issuance
of summons u/s 3(1)X of the SC/ST
Act.(Para 1 to 18)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow
and the impugned order dated 5.1.2023
passed by the Additional Session Judge,
Court No.8/Special Judge, Gangsters Act,
Lucknow are illegal and the same are liable
to be quashed.

24. In view of above facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
orders passed by the courts below cannot
be said to be passed in correct perspectives
as they are not sustainable in the eye of law
and require interference by this Court, the
prosecution has failed to establish that the
provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the
Gangster Act are attracted in the case of
appellant, and further the appellant's
property is also not attached in accordance
with law, as the prosecution has failed to
establish that the property in question
acquired and owned by the appellant has
been earned from the income indulging in
anti social activities. The enquiry under
Section 16 was not done in accordance with
the Act, the provisions of Sections 14, 15 &
17 were also not followed in accordance
with the Act, thus the entire proceeding
initiated in pursuance thereof is vitiated.

25. Accordingly, the present appeal is
allowed. The
impugned
order
dated
13.04.2022
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No. 2850 of
2021
Computerized
Case
No.
D202110460002850 (State Vs. Waseem
Khan) under section 14(1) of Gangster Act
and the impugned order dated 5.1.2023
passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court No.
8/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow in
Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2022 (Waseem
Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another) and Criminal Misc. Case No. 735
of 2022 ( State of U.P. Vs. Waseem Khan)
are hereby quashed.

The
District
Magistrate,
Lucknow/opposite party no.2 is directed to
release all the properties of the appellant
attached vide order dated 13.04.2022 in
favour of appellant, forthwith.

No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 870
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2023

Indramani Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sameer Singh, Pawan Kumar Pandey, Shashank
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Vikas Verma

A. Criminal Law - The Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A(1) -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147,
323, 326-A, 504 and 3(1)X SC/ST ActChallenge to -summoning order u/s 3(1)X
SC/ST Act-Apex Court held in very clear
words that hurling abuses naming the
caste in the public place or at the place of
public view, would only constitute an
offence under SC/ST Act unless it is
established, the trial court has to judicially
scrutinize the factum that whether the
words spoken are in the public view or
public place-In the instant case, on cry of
the family members of the complainant ,
the village persons reached inside the
house and they saw that the accused
persons are beating and hurling abuses to
the family members inside the house
which is admittedly not a public place-
5 All. Indramani Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
871
Thus, the learned trial court did not apply
its
judicial
mind
while
issuing
the
summons against the applicants u/s 3(1)X
of
SC/ST
Act-Resultantly,
summoning
order is set aside to the extent of issuance
of summons u/s 3(1)X of the SC/ST
Act.(Para 1 to 18)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of U.K. & Anr (2020) 10
SCC 710

2. Ashwani Kumar Vs State & anr. WP (Crl.) No.
1593 of 2006 & Crl M.A. No 6859 of 2006

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

(1.) Heard Shri Sameer Singh,
Advocate assisted by Shri Shashank Singh,
learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri
Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for
the State.

(2.) This criminal appeal under
Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed with a
prayer to quash the summoning order dated
04.02.2023 under Section 147, 323, 326-A,
504 of IPC and 3(1)X SC/ST Act, 1989
arising out of Complaint Case No. 118 of
2019 (Jagannath Vs. Sitaram & Ors.)
pending before the learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar and the entire
criminal proceedings arising out of the
aforementioned complaint case.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants submit that the appellants are
innocent and have falsely been implicated
in the instant matter. He submits that the
First Information Report was lodged on
09.01.2017 and thereafter, the Investigating
Officer conducted investigation and found
no material against the appellant so far as
the
allegations
leveled
in
the
First
Information Report is concerned and thus
the
final
report
was
submitted
on
05.07.2017. On such final report, the
complainant filed the protest application on
06.06.2018 and the same was treated as a
complaint case and the Magistrate and
learned trial Court has recorded the
statement of the complainant as well as
the witnesses under Section 200 & 202
of the Cr.P.C. He has drawn attention of
this
Court
towards
the
protest
application, which reveals that the
allegation is regarding the fact that the
accused
persons
attacked
over
the
injured as well as other family members
and thereafter, they entered into the
house of the complainant and have
beaten and poured certain inflammable
substance
over
the
son
of
the
complainant and as a result, he got
burnt.

(4.) The contention of the Counsel for
the complainant is that along with other
sections of the IPC, the Magistrate has
summoned the appellants under Section
3(1)X of the SC/ST Act. He has further
drawn attention of this Court towards the
statement of the complainant, which has
been annexed on Page - 100 and has
referred that the complainant himself has
stated before the trial Court that the
incident took place inside of the house and
after hue and cry of the complainant, the
village people came over there and the
appellants were rescued. He further submits
that the learned trial Court has ignored the
fact that the incident did not take place in
public view and therefore, the summons
under Section 3(1)X of the SC/ST Act
could not have been issued against the
appellants.
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5.) In support of his contention, he
has placed reliance on a judgment reported
in (2020) 10 SCC 710; Hitesh Verma Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.; and has
referred Paragraphs 14, 17 & 18 of the said
case. Paragraphs 14, 17 & 18 of the
judgment are quoted hereunder:-

"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. 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. 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, 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 p;ace 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."

17. In another judgment reported as
Khuman Singh V. State of M.P., this Court
held that in a case for applicability of
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the
deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste
would not be enough to inflict enhanced
punishment. This Court held that there was
nothing to suggest that the offence was
committed by the appellant only because
the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste.
The Court held as under:-

"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the
offence must be such so as to attract the
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
The offence must have been committed
against the person on the ground that such
person is a member of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the
fact that the deceased was belonging to
"Khangar"
Scheduled
Caste
is
not
disputed. There is no evidence to show that
the offence was committed only on the
ground that the victim was a member of the
Scheduled
Caste
and
therefore,
the
conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act is not sustainable." 18.
Therefore,
offence under the Act is not established
5 All. Indramani Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
873
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 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.

(6.) Relying upon the aforesaid
judgment, he submits that the Apex Court
has
drawn
distinction
between
the
expression "public place" "and in any place
within public view" and it has been held
that if an offence is committed outside the
building etc. or in the lawn, outside a house
and the lawn can be seen by someone from
the road or a lane outside the boundary
wall, then the lawn would certainly be a
place within public view and thus it is
borne out from the aforesaid ratio that so
far as the offences under SC/ST Act is
concerned, that is to be scrutinized on the
aforesaid test.

(7.) He has also placed reliance on the
judgment rendered in Writ Petition (Crl.)
No. 1593 of 2006 & Criminal M.A. No.
6859 of 2006; Ashwani Kumar Vs. State
& Anr.; and has referred paragraph 9 & 17
of the judgment. Paragraph 9 & 17 of the
said judgment is quoted herein below:-

" 9. Proposition of law thus is clear.
Simply because Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act
finds mention in the FIR by itself cannot be
a ground to conclude that prima facie an
offence under the along said Section of
SC/ST Act has been made out. Judicial
scrutiny of the documents in suchlike cases
is permissible to evaluate whether the
material relied upon by the prosecution
revealed the existence of basic ingredients
of the offence or not. For that limited
purpose, the Court can sift and weigh the
material placed before it, before examining
the question whether on the allegations
made in the FIR, prima facie any offence
under Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act is made
out.

....17. Expression "public" is a polimorphus
word
which
has
different
meanings, which is used as noun or as an
adjective. As noun, "public" means a body
of people at large; the community at large,
without reference to the geographical limits
of any corporation like a city, town or
country, the people; the whole body
politics, or all the citizens of the state. In
other words, the word public does not mean
all the people or most of the people nor
very many of the people of a place, but so
many of them as contradistinguishes them
from a few. Therefore, public means
inhabitants of a particular place, may be
all
or
few
or
the
people
of
the
neighbourhood. As an adjective, 'public'
would have meaning upon the subjects to
which it is applied. SC/ST Act has been
enacted with a view to protect a weaker
section of the society from various kinds of
atrocities that might be perpetrated against
SC/STs which find enumeration in Section 3
of the SC/ST Act as constituting an offence.
Court has to keep in mind that offence
under the SC/ST Act are quite grave and
provide stringent punishment and therefore,
stronger proof is required. Court has to
adopt an interpretation which suppresses
or evades the mischief which might have
been played and advances the object of the
Act. Therefore, 'public view' appearing in
Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act has to be
interpreted to mean the presence of the
public persons, however small may be, and
those
persons
are
independent
and
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impartial and not interested in any of the
parties. In other words, persons having any
kind of close relationship or association
with the complainant have to be excluded
from the definition of 'public view'."

(8.) Referring the aforesaid judgment,
he added that simply because Section of
SC/ST Act finds mention in the FIR, it
cannot be a ground to reach at conclusion
that, prima facie, an offence is made out but
the judicial scrutiny of the documents in
such like cases is required to evaluate ,
whether the material relied upon by the
prosecution reveals the existence of the
basic ingredients of the offence or not?

(9.) He also contends that bare
reading of the order passed by the trial
Court, which is impugned with this appeal,
is evident that merely on the basis of the
assertion and without scrutinizing the
evidence, the same has been passed. The
complainant himself has stated that certain
people attacked over the house and after
cry of the family members, the village
persons
came
there
and
thus,
the
ingredients of Section 3(1)X do not attract.
Concluding his arguments, he added that
even the statement of the complainant is
also evident that the incident has taken
place inside of the house which is neither
public place nor place with public view,
and, therefore, the order dated 04.02.2023
is without the application of judicial mind
and considering the law enunciated by the
Apex Court, the same may be set aside.

(10.) On the other hand, learned
Counsel appearing for the complainant has
vehemently
opposed
the
contentions
aforesaid and submits that the statement
has been recorded by the trial Court under
Sections 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. which
clearly shows that the offence has been
committed by the appellants and whereby,
the trial Court considering the same has
issued the summon under Section 3(1)X of
SC/ST Act along with Sections 147, 323,
326A & 504 of IPC. He has drawn attention
of this Court towards the impugned order
and submits that the trial Court has
considered
the
statement
of
the
complainant as well as the witnesses under
Sections 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. respectively
and also given its finding and thus, the
summoning order, issued against the
appellants, do not assail any infirmity and
erroneousness and, therefore, the instant
appeal has no merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

(11.) Per Contra, learned A.G.A.
appearing
for
the
State
has
also
controverted the contention of Counsel for
the appellants and added that after
recording the statement of the complainant
and the witnesses, the order has been
passed thereby giving the reasonings and,
thus, no interference is warranted.

(12.) Having heard learned Counsel
for the parties and after perusal of the
material placed on record, it transpires that
initially the FIR was lodged on 09.01.2017
against
the
appellants
and
after
investigation, when it was found by the
investigating officer that there is no
substantive material or evidence against the
appellants, the final report was submitted
and when the protest application was filed
on 06.06.2018, the Magistrate, treating the
same as a complaint case, has recorded the
statements of the complainant as well as the
witnesses and issued summons under
Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act including other
sections of IPC.

(13.) When this Court examines the
statement of the complainant, it reveals that
5 All. Gaurav Sharma @ Sonu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
875
the complainant himself had admitted that
the incident had taken place inside of the
house and it has been further stated that the
accused persons came and attacked over
the house and entered into the same and
started beating and on the cry of family
members, the village persons came over
there and thus, prima facie, there seems to
be no evidence with respect to the fact that
certain other persons were there than the
family members who have seen or heard
the incident and thus, prima facie the
alleged occurrence cannot said to be
happened in public place or place within
public view?

(14.) This Court has also considered
the ratio of the judgment of Apex Court
rendered in the case of Hitesh Verma
(Supra), which clearly says that if the
incident took place outside the area of the
house or in the lawn but unless that access
is within of the public, the same cannot be
said to be happened at public view or
public place. The reliance has also been
placed on a judgment rendered in the case
of Ashwani Kumar (Supra) wherein it has
been held that only mentioning the sections
of SC/ST Act cannot be a ground to
conclude committal of an offence under the
aforesaid Act, unless the judicial scrutiny is
done.

(15.) After the aforesaid submissions
and discussions, it emerges that Hon'ble the
Apex Court has held in very clear words
that hurling abuses naming the caste in the
public place or at the place of public view,
would only constitute an offence under
SC/ST Act and unless it is established, no
criminal proceeding can go on in such
cases and for reaching on the conclusion,
the trial Court has to judicially scrutinize
the factum that whether the words spoken
are in the public view or public place. So
far as the present case is concerned, on cry
of the family members of the complainant,
the village persons reached and they saw
that the accused persons are beating the
family members though the abuses were
hurled inside of the house, which is
admittedly not a public place.

(16.) Considering the aforesaid
submissions
and
discussions,
it
is
decipherable that the learned trial Court did
not apply its judicial mind while issuing the
summons against the applicants under
Section
3(1)X
of
the
SC/ST
Act.
Resultantly, the summoning order dated
04.02.2023 is set aside to the extent of
issuance of summons under Section 3(1)X
of the SC/ST Act.

(17.) It is directed that the trial Court
shall proceed accordingly.

(18.) The appeal is hereby partly
allowed with the aforesaid observations.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 875
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2017
with
Crl. Appeals No. 1160 of 2017 & 1162 of 2017

Gaurav Sharma @ Sonu & Anr....Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Sri Amit Kumar, Sri
Brijesh Sahai, Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Raj Singh
Parihar, Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri Saurabh Yadav, Sri
Vimlendu Tripathi