# Kripa Shankar Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 774 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-11 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kripa-shankar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44386 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Where the FIR does not contain the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act-namely that the accused is not a member of SC/ST and that intentional caste-based insult or intimidation was made within public view-the continuation of proceedings under the said provision amounts to abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. However, where prima facie material exists for offences under the IPC, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not quash the charge sheet at the pre-trial stage. Case Law discussed: Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Procedural History: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 292 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 733 of 2015, under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. Decision: Application partly allowed. Proceedings relating to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act quashed. Prayer for quashing proceedings under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC rejected. Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law. ## Text 774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 774 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR. J. Application U/S 482 No.- 20282 Of 2016 Kripa Shankar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Arvind Sikaria Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Headnote: Para- Where the FIR does not contain the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act-namely that the accused is not a member of SC/ST and that intentional caste-based insult or intimidation was made within public view-the continuation of proceedings under the said provision amounts to abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. However, where prima facie material exists for offences under the IPC, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not quash the charge sheet at the pre-trial stage. Case Law discussed: Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Procedural History: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 292 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 733 of 2015, under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. Decision: Application partly allowed. Proceedings relating to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act quashed. Prayer for quashing proceedings under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC rejected. Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harsh Kumar) (Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.) 1. Learned A.G.A. states that in view of facts and circumstances of the case by issuing notices to opposite party no.2 no useful purpose would be served and the application may be heard and disposed of without issuing notices to the opposite party no.2. 8 All. Kripa Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 775 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with the prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case no.292 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Kripa Shankar Singh and others), arising out of case crime no.733 of 2015, under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the FIR has been lodged with absolutely false, baseless and concocted allegations; that it is wrong to say that the first informant was going by motorcycle at the time of alleged incident along-with Vijay Singh Pradhan and B.D.C. Sunil Kumar Goswami, as three persons are not permitted to ride on a two wheeler; that the applicants did neither damage the motorcycle of first informant nor committed mar-peet with him nor abused nor threatened him; that it is absolutely wrong and is highly improbable that the applicants were taking liquor together at the time of alleged incident because the applicant no.1 is father of applicant no.2 and applicant nos.2, 3 & 4 are young boys of family of applicant no.1; that there is no whisper in the FIR that the applicants are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or they intentionally insulted or intimidated the opposite party no.2 or abused him in the name of caste, with an intention to humiliate the opposite party no.2 within public view; that the provisions of SC/ST Act are not attracted in this case; that it is nowhere mentioned that the applicants are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and insulted or intimidated to humiliate the opposite party no.2 within public view and so the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not made out; that the opposite party no.2 is neighbour of applicants and is on inimical terms with the applicant no.1, because the applicant no.1 had turned down his offer for exchange of agricultural plots about a decade back; that the opposite party no.2 has political affiliation and has lodged false FIR in order to harm and harass the applicants including applicant nos. 2 to 4, who are students; that in these circumstances the charge sheet filed against the applicants without there being sufficient evidence against them, is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. submits that on 08.10.2015 when the opposite party no.2 was returning to his home, the applicants obstructed his way and not only damaged his motorcycle and committed mar-peet, but also insulted and humiliated him by abusing and threatening; that the issues of facts have been raised by the applicants, correctness of which is to be decided upon evidence before the trial court and at this stage the contention of the applicants about the falsity of prosecution case may not be presumed to be correct and without evidence before trial court the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved or thrown out; that the Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient material evidence has submitted charge sheet; that the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with wrong and baseless allegations just to delay the disposal of trial and there is no ground for quashing the charge sheet or proceedings. 6. Upon perusal of record and copy of FIR at Annexure 2, I find that there is no averment in the FIR that the applicants ever called the opposite party no.2 by his catse name and further there is no averment about the applicants being not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is 776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES also pertinent to mention here that there is no averment that the applicants intimidated the opposite party no.2 with an intent to humiliate within public view. 7. The provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act provides that ?whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.? Since the basic ingredients for making offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are missing in the FIR, the applicants may not be presumed to have committed offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and should not be forced to face the trial for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act irrespective of the fact that they may be tried for other offences. The Investigating Officer appears to have not taken care of the required ingredients of offences as per provisions of under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act at the time of submitting charge sheet. 8. It will not be out of place to make reference of the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446, Paragraph 6 of which reads as follows: - "In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant- accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law." 9. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered view that since the basic ingredients for an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are missing from the FIR and so no offence under above provisions can be said to be made out. As such, the criminal trial of applicants with respect to the said offence will be wholly unjustified, leading to abuse of process of law. In the circumstances the order of cognizance under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act as well as trial for the offence under above provisions may not be allowed to continue and is liable to be quashed. However, as far as offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC are concerned, upon investigation the charge sheet has been submitted and at this stage, without any evidence to the contrary, the prosecution case may not be presumed to be false by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8 All. Kripa Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 777 10. In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for quashing the entire charge sheet or deleting the names of the applicants from the charge sheet as per prayer, though the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed partly and the proceedings of case crime no.733 of 2015 with regarding to Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are liable to be quashed. As far as the prayer for deleting the names of the applicants or quashing the charge sheet in respect of other offences under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC, the application is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 11. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and the proceedings in case crime no.733 of 2015 with regard to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST Act are quashed and in respect to other offences under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC the application is rejected. The Magistrate concerned shall proceed with the trial under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC in accordance with law. If the applicants surrenders before the Magistrate/ court concerned, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. ---------- 778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 778 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 23905 Of 2016 Ramveer & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Sri K.D. Tiwary He: Paras 6 to 13 Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and cannot be done in a routine or mechanical manner. Though detailed reasons are not required at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the order must reflect due application of judicial mind. Where the Magistrate fails to discuss the material evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and merely records that a prima facie case exists without indicating the basis thereof, such order is liable to be quashed. In the present case, the complaint (Case No. 566/2016, Govind vs. Ramveer and 8 others) alleged offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 354-A and 506 IPC. The Magistrate, while passing the summoning order dated 20.07.2016, neither discussed the evidence nor specified the overt acts attributable to each accused. The impugned order did not reflect consideration of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. or application of judicial discretion. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 20.07.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sambhal, was quashed and the matter remanded to the trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. Case Law discussed: M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate Paul George v. State Result: Application Allowed. Summoning order quashed. Matter remanded. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri K.D. Tiwary, learned counsel for OP No.-2, learned AGA and perused the records.