Sanjeev Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10566 of 2025

¶3

Sanjeev Rai

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Kashi Nath Shukla, Sneh Ranjan Shukla : Chandrakant Tripathi, Rajnandani Mishra, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 51

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Kashi Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Chandrakant Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

¶9

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to quash charge-sheet no. 260 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 0269 of 2025, under Sections, 224, 352, 351 (2) and 3(1) (da) of SC/ST Act, PoliceStation- Muhammadabad, District- Mau and further the summoning order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), Mau as Special Trial No. 928 of 2025 (State Vs. Sanjeev Rai) whereby the trial court has taken cognizance on the chargesheet and summoned the appellant.

¶10

The facts of the present case are that on 26.02.2025, first informant Ajay Vikram Singh the then Deputy Superintend of Police, Mohammadabad presently posted as Chief Airport Security Officer, DistrictAzamgarh moved a complaint against Sri Sanjeev Rai resident of Kerma Hafijpur Muhammadabad Gohna Mau, working as journalist attempted to terrorize local police to co operate in his immoral acts and for this he was regularly pressurize to do the same which the informant refused and took action against the complaints fairly for which he used to make complaints to higher authorities against him, it was also stated that on 30.11.2024 Sanjeev Rai on his facebook id posted remarks "Ab Hawai Jahaj Udegi" and further on 08.11.2024 when the first informant attended the ceremony in sacred

¶11

CRLA No. 10566 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

heart school, the accused Appellant taking credit of my transfer when he found alone to the complainant, during this ceremony using Chamaria Siyaria caste related words abused the informant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are materially inconsistent with regard to the place of occurrence. However, during the course of investigation, when the statements of the informant and three witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they were recorded their statements taking credit of the transfer of the informant and used caste related words abused but the informant was not present at spot. It is further submitted that a dispute arising out of an alleged act of bursting crackers has been given the colour of an offence under the SC/ST Act, though the essential ingredients of the said offence are conspicuously absent. Hence, the prosecution story against the appellant under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is wholly unsustainable.

¶15

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have submitted that when the informant attended the ceremony in sacred heart school, the accused appellant taking credit of his transfer and during this ceremony using Chamaria Siyaria caste related words abused the informant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the informant, there is no inconsistency in the prosecution case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are contrary to the material available on record.

¶16

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire record, including the first information report, charge-sheet and the statements of the informant and other witnesses recorded during investigation.

¶17

The statements of three witness were recorded namely Anil Chauhan, Nihal Singh, and Saurabh Kumar, who gave a similar statement. They stated that on 8 December 2024, at different place (the railway station and Sacred Heart School, Mohammadabad Gohna), they saw journalist Sanjeev Rai with his associates. During this time, Sanjeev Rai allegedly made caste-based derogatory remarks about Circle Officer/ informant and also claimed that he has taken the credit of the transfer of the Circle Officer/informant that he would not be able to return to the district or hold any circle charge at Mohammadabad. According to the witnesses, Sanjeev Rai used abusive language involving caste and insults related to family, and then left the place

¶18

CRLA No. 10566 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

while issuing threats.

¶21

All three individuals stated that they have no personal enmity with anyone and are only reporting what they saw or heard but it appears from the statement recorded by all the witness, the Circle Officer/ informant is not present at that places occurrence.

¶22

The materials collected during investigation do not disclose that the alleged acts were committed on account of the caste of the informant or with the intention to humiliate or intimidate him solely because he belongs to a Scheduled Caste.

¶23

It is well settled that for attracting the provisions of Sections 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must prima facie establish that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim with intent to humiliate him on the ground that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and that such act was committed in a place within public view.

¶24

In the present case, there is not even a whisper in the first information report or in the statements recorded during investigation to show that the appellants acted with the requisite mens rea to humiliate the informant on the basis of his caste. Mere use of abusive language or involvement in a scuffle, without the foundational requirement of caste-based intent, does not attract the rigours of the SC/ST Act.

¶25

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, has categorically held:

¶26

"Offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of a Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that such person belongs to such caste."

¶27

The Honbble Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 , laid down the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. It reads thus:-

¶28

“55. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence under Section

¶29

3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are:

¶30

a. Accused person must not be a member of the Scheduled Caste

¶31

CRLA No. 10566 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

or Scheduled Tribe;

¶34

b. Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

¶35

c. Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate such a person; and

¶36

d. Accused must do so at any place within public view.”

¶37

(Emphasis supplied)

¶38

12. Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation by the accused is that the person who is subjected to is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In other words, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a member of the community.

¶39

13. To put it briefly - first, the fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. Secondly, any insult or intimidation towards the complainant must be on the account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

¶40

14. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity, we deem it appropriate to mention that even mere knowledge of the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).

¶41

15. Further, for an offence to be made out under Section 3(1)(s), merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. At the same time, saying caste name would also not constitute an offence.

¶42

16. In other words, to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe “by the caste name” in any place within public view. Thus, the allegations must reveal

¶43

CRLA No. 10566 of 2025

¶44

5

¶45

that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste name had been hurled as an abuse."

¶46

Applying the aforesaid settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act are wholly absent. The prosecution case, even if accepted in entirety, discloses at best a minor scuffle arising out of a personal dispute, which has been given a criminal colour under special legislation.

¶47

Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of the SC/ST Act would, therefore, amount to abuse of the process of law. The charge-sheet dated 01.07.2025, the cognizance-cumsummoning order dated 01.09.2025, as far as relate to offences under Sections 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act, are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. Remaining proceedings related to offences under IPC/BNS will continue against appellant.

¶48

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

¶49

April 2, 2026 Akbar

¶50

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶51

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Harmesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishabh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sulochana vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukhtyar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Alias Ankur Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others