C482/1488/2016 on 8 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

C482/1488/2016 on 8 August, 2025

                                                                  2025:UHC:7001
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               C482/1488/2016


                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for
the applicant.

2. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
for the State.

3. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking
quashing of the summoning/cognizance order
dated 03.09.2016 passed in Special Sessions
Trial No. 12 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 325, 504 & 506 IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in
short “the SC/ST Act”), pending before the
Court of the 3rd Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Haridwar as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are
that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on
27.04.2016 alleging that on 26.04.2016 the
applicants assaulted his son and thereafter
entered his house and assaulted the
complainant and others, while also using caste-
related abusive words. Based on the said
report, the Investigating Officer conducted
investigation and filed a charge-sheet against
the applicants, on which the learned trial court
took cognizance.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that the applicants are innocent and
have falsely been implicated; that, there is a
delay of one day in lodging the FIR without
2025:UHC:7001

any explanation, casting doubt on the
prosecution story; that, the FIR is exaggerated
and unsupported by medical evidence; that, no
specific role is assigned to the applicants. Even
if the allegations are taken at face value, no
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
is made out.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants would
further submit that the FIR does not allege that
the applicants were not members of a
Scheduled Caste/Tribe, nor does it state that
the complainant was insulted or intimidated
with intent to humiliate within public view;
that, there is no independent public witness,
and the alleged incident lacks the basic
statutory ingredients to attract Section 3(1)(x)
SC/ST Act; that, the charge-sheet contains no
specific averments justifying invocation of the
SC/ST Act, and the summoning order has been
passed mechanically. Learned counsel for the
applicant confined his prayer only to the extent
that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST
Act be quashed against the applicants as no
offence has been made out against them.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel would
submit that the charge-sheet was filed after due
investigation and cognizance was taken after
perusal of the record. However, he fairly
concedes that the charge-sheet lacks specific
averments necessary to attract Section 3(1)(x)
of the SC/ST Act.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.

9. The essential ingredient of Section
3(1)(x) of the Act, prior to its amendment dated
18.01.2016, reads as follows:

“Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
intentionally insults or intimidates with
2025:UHC:7001

intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view.”

10. On perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet,
the Court finds that no specific caste-related
words have been attributed to the applicants.
No allegation that the incident occurred in
public view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335, has laid down the categories of
cases where inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to prevent abuse
of process or to secure the ends of justice.

11. In view of the above, even if the
allegations in the FIR are taken at their face
value, the essential ingredients of Section
3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, namely, intentional insult
or intimidation with intent to humiliate within
public view, are absent.

12. Accordingly, the C-482 application is
partly allowed. The proceedings in Special
Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2016, pending before
the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Haridwar, are quashed only to the extent they
relate to the offence under Section 3(1)(x)
SC/ST Act against the applicants. However,
the trial shall proceed with respect to the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
325, 504 and 506 IPC in accordance with law.

13. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
08.08.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:7001