Ram Darash Gond And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84164
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3622 of 2026   
 
   Ram Darash Gond And 3 Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
 Jyoti Bhushan, G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 51
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Jyoti Bhushan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to quash the summoning order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 152 of 2023 (Bhullar @ Kishor Ram vs. Ram Daras Gond & Ors.), whereby the trial court has taken cognizance and summoned the appellants under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 17.07.2023, at about 5:30 p.m., complainant and his son, Abhay Kumar, were engaged in agricultural work on their Bhumidhari land (Plot No. 105/1, measuring 0.9720 hectares), subsequently, the appellants reached the land in question armed with lathi, danda and iron rod with an intention to commit maarpeet, and started abusing with caste remarks to them, thereafter, the appellants started chased down the complainant and his son, Abhay Kumar, and subjected them to a brutal assault leaving them severely injured. When the complainant and his son, Abhay Kumar, escape from the clutches of the appellants towards their house to save their lives, the appellants again entered into their house and again started abusing caste related words.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which is already pending adjudication before the competent civil court and the opposite party no. 2 has wrongly given the colour of an offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients constituting an offence under the said Act are conspicuously absent. Hence, the prosecution story against the appellants under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, and Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 2730, wherein it has been held that when the dispute pertains to possession of property pending before a civil court, any dispute arising on account of said property dispute would not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless the victim is intentionally abused, intimidated, or harassed solely on account of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the impugned summoning order has been passed by the trial court without due application of judicial mind and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the submissions and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It has been further submitted that a civil suit was filed by appellant no. 1 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh, in which notices were issued to opposite parties and on account of the said dispute, the appellants deliberately assaulted the complainant and his son Abhay Kumar with lathi and iron rod and also used caste indicated words.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire record.

8. It is admitted that a dispute exists between the parties regarding Gata No. 105/1, having 0.9720 hectare, for which a civil suit had been filed by appellant no. 1, thereafter, a scuffle took place between the parties.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand, (supra), has categorically held in paragraphs 16 and 18 as follows:

"16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

17.......

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established 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 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."

10. Further, a perusal of the complaint indicates that as per paragraph no. 5, the appellants allegedly assaulted opposite party no. 2 and his son Abhay Kumar with lathi and danda. It is further alleged that when the complainant and his son somehow escaped from the clutches of the appellants and reached their house, the appellants have entered in the house and again abused them using caste-related remarks. This allegation indicates that the second incident took place inside the house.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama vs. State of U.P. (supra), while relying upon Hitesh Verma (supra), has reiterated that:

"11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view."

12. Applying the aforesaid settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act are not made out. The prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, discloses at best a scuffle arising out of a civil dispute, which has been given a colour of an offence under special legislation.

13. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of the SC/ST Act would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.01.2026, insofar as it relates to the offence under Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act, is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. However, the proceedings in respect of the offences under the IPC shall continue against the appellants in accordance with law.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

April 16, 2026

Akbar