# Urmila Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 34
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2620 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/urmila-singh-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50788
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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-
9 All. Urmila Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
35
third portion was allegedly grabbed by the
appellant illegally - The complainant asked the
appellant to pay the amount of Rs.7,02,000/-
through a legal notice, but the appellant
abused the complainant with caste-specific
abusive language and on the date of the
incident, when the complainant was watering
the plants, the accused persons started
assaulting the complainant and their wife, and
abused them with caste-specific language -
The appellant contended that the entire
prosecution story was false and fabricated and
lodged with malafide intention to implicate the
appellant's family - court finds that, as the
alleged incident took place inside the house of
the complainant and not in the public place nor
there was any public view, thus, no question
arose that there is any public humiliation cause
to the appellant for lodging the case under
section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act -
and there is nothing to show that other
sections of the IPC are also attracted in the
case
-
the appellant's application
for
anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial
court on the ground that Section 18 of the
SC/ST Act bars such applications - held, the
incident took place inside the house and not
in a public place or public view, and
therefore, no public humiliation was caused
to the appellant - and in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court, court is of
the view that the learned court below has
failed to appreciate the material available
on record, - therefore, the impugned order
rejecting
the
anticipatory
bail
of
the
appellant is hereby set aside and reversed -
hence, appeal is allowed - the appellant was
granted
anticipatory
bail
with
certain
conditions. (Para - 10, 11, 12, 13)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

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-
9 All. Urmila Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
35
third portion was allegedly grabbed by the
appellant illegally - The complainant asked the
appellant to pay the amount of Rs.7,02,000/-
through a legal notice, but the appellant
abused the complainant with caste-specific
abusive language and on the date of the
incident, when the complainant was watering
the plants, the accused persons started
assaulting the complainant and their wife, and
abused them with caste-specific language -
The appellant contended that the entire
prosecution story was false and fabricated and
lodged with malafide intention to implicate the
appellant's family - court finds that, as the
alleged incident took place inside the house of
the complainant and not in the public place nor
there was any public view, thus, no question
arose that there is any public humiliation cause
to the appellant for lodging the case under
section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act -
and there is nothing to show that other
sections of the IPC are also attracted in the
case
-
the appellant's application
for
anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial
court on the ground that Section 18 of the
SC/ST Act bars such applications - held, the
incident took place inside the house and not
in a public place or public view, and
therefore, no public humiliation was caused
to the appellant - and in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court, court is of
the view that the learned court below has
failed to appreciate the material available
on record, - therefore, the impugned order
rejecting
the
anticipatory
bail
of
the
appellant is hereby set aside and reversed -
hence, appeal is allowed - the appellant was
granted
anticipatory
bail
with
certain
conditions. (Para - 10, 11, 12, 13)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of UP & anr., reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 22,

2. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020)
10 SCC 710,

3. Gopal Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No.16343 of 2020,

4. Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (2020)
4 SCC 727.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal has been filed
with a prayer to allow the appeal as well as
to set aside the judgement and order dated
22.08.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in F.I.R.
No.69 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Krishna
Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that
the informant was asked to vacate the
house in which he was living on rent of
Rs.5,000/- per month. The informant
received the order for vacation from the
officer concerned. As per the order, one
third portion was allotted to the appellant,
wherein she was living with her family.
Another one third portion was grabbed by
the appellant illegally. The complainant
asked the appellant to pay the amount of
Rs.7,02,000/- through a legal notice,
however,
the
appellant
abused
the
complainant with caste abusive languages.
On the date of incident, when the
complainant was watering the plants, the
accused persons started assaulting the
complainant as well as his wife and had
abused them in caste abusive languages.

4. As per the affidavit filed in support
of the appeal, the contention of the
appellant is that the entire prosecution story
is false and fabricated. No case under the
Sections of 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act
is attracted against the appellant. As per the
averment made in the affidavit, the incident
is alleged to have taken place inside the
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
house i.e. inside the boundary wall of house
and garden, which is neither a public place
nor there was any public view and the
instant appellant was not present at the time
of the alleged incident. It has also been
contended that even the offence under the
provisions of I.P.C. is also not attracted
against the appellant as there is no injury
found on the person of the victim and even
medical report is also not available. Thus,
the entire prosecution story appears to be
false and lodged with malafide intention to
implicate the entire family of the appellant,
who is a lady.

5. Her further averment is that by
means of the impugned order dated
22.08.2023,
the
application
seeking
anticipatory bail by the present appellant
came to be rejected by learned trial Court
on the ground that entertaining such
application
for
anticipatory
bail
is
specifically barred and excluded by virtue
of Section 18 of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,
1989').

6. Being germane to the present
controversy, Section 18 of SC/ST Act is
quoted herein below :

"18. Section 438 of the Code not
to apply to persons committing an offence
under the Act.?Nothing in section 438 of
the Code shall apply in relation to any case
involving the arrest of any person on an
accusation of having committed an offence
under this Act."

7. Her further averment is that the
aforesaid impugned order dated 22.08.2023
is patently illegal insofar as the same has
been passed without considering the law
laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India
and Other; (2020) 4 SCC 727 and
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Gopal Mishra Vs.
State of U.P. and Others; Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.16343 of 2020. Her
further averment is that the incident does
not took place in the public view and public
place, therefore, she may be given benefit
of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh
Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2020)
10 SCC 710, wherein in para 13 and 18,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has opined as
under:-

"13. 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.

18. Therefore, offence under the
Act is not established merely on the fact
9 All. Urmila Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
37
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 of 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."

8. On the basis of above, it is further
averred that denial of anticipatory bail on the
basis of bar contained in Section 18 of Act,
1989 is not sustainable. Therefore, the
appellant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting
that Section 18 of SC/ST Act provides
specific bar, in order to prevent and protect
atrocities being committed in respect of
members belonging to SC/ST Community.
Therefore,
such
enactment
should
be
construed strictly and in this view of the
matter, no fault with the impugned order can
be found.

10. Considering the averments made in
the affidavit filed in support of the appeal as
well as submissions made by learned A.G.A.
for the State and going through the contents
of the impugned order passed by the trial
court dated 22.08.2023 and the contents of
the F.I.R., as the alleged incident took place
inside the house of the complainant and not
in the public place nor there was any public
view, thus, no question arose that there is any
public humiliation caused to the appellant for
lodging the case under Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha)
of S.C./S.T. Act and even there is nothing to
show that other Sections of the I.P.C. are also
attracted in the case of the appellant and also
considering the Section 18 of the Act, 1989
which provides that there is a bar to grant
anticipatory bail as well as considering the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra)
and judgment rendered by a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Gopal Mishra
(Supra) and further considering the Article
21 of the Constitution of India and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and
another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and
Hitesh Verma (Supra), this Court is of the
view that the learned court below has failed
to appreciate the material available on record.
The order passed by the court below is liable
to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed.
Consequently,
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 22.08.2023
passed by the learned Special Judge,
S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in F.I.R. No.69 of
2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act,
Police Station Krishna Nagar, District
Lucknow rejecting the anticipatory bail of
the appellant, is hereby set aside and
reversed.

12. It is directed that in the event of
arrest of the appellant, namely, Urmila
Singh Chauhan in F.I.R. No.69 of 2021,
under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act,
Police Station Krishna Nagar, District
Lucknow, she shall be released forthwith
by the Station House Officer of the police
station concerned, on her furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with the
following condition:-

(i) That the accused-appellant
shall
make
herself
available
for
interrogation by police authorities as and
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
when required and will cooperate with the
investigation;

(ii) That the accused-appellant
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 her from disclosing such
facts to the court or to any police officer;
and

(iii) That the accused-appellant
shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.

13. It is made clear that the
observation made herein above are only
confined to the disposal of the instant
criminal
appeal
i.e. anticipatory bail
application only and has no effect on the
ultimate merit of the case.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 38
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3480 of 2002

Sunil Prakash Gaur ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.N. Pandey, Sri A.K. Pandey, Sri Alok
Kumar Mishra, Ms. Suman Sirohi, Sri
Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sri Shyam Singh
Somvanshi

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 313 & 437-A - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 307, 353, 504
& 506 - Appeal - against conviction and
Sentence - FIR - informant is a Junior
Engineer alleged that the appellant came to his
office with an open can of kerosene oil and
asked to prepare his salary - The first
informant told him that his salary had been
paid for the period he had worked - After
hearing these words, the appellant poured
kerosene oil upon the first informant and
threatened him with dire consequences - He
also threw a burning match stick upon the first
informant but the first informant fled away
from
the
spot
and
saved
himself -
investigation - Chargesheet - conviction -
sentence - Evaluation of Evidence - Court finds
that, the appellant argued that no recovery memo
of the can of kerosene oil had been proved by the
prosecution - PW-2 and PW-3 had not seen the
appellant pouring kerosene oil upon the first
informant - PW-1 is a solitary witness of the
incident - there is material contradiction between
the St.ment of PW-1 and other two eye witnesses
- The court examined the entire ocular evidence
and noted several contradictions and omissions in
the testimony of the witnesses - held - the
prosecution failed to prove the charge of offense
punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the
appellant beyond pale of doubt - the appellant is
entitled to the benefit of doubt and hence,
appeal is allowed - impugned conviction as well
as sentence is set aside - consequently,
appellant is acquitted of all charges. (Para - 31,
32, 33, 34)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & ors.,
(2017) 11 SCC 195,

2. Balaka Singh & ors. v. St. of Pun., AIR 1975
SC 1962,

3. Vadivelu Thevar Vs The St. of Madras, AIR
1957 SC 614,

4. C. Muniappan & ors.. Vs St. of T.N., AIR 2010
SC 3718.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Pachori, J.)