Dr Shailendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned summoning orders dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra, as well as entire proceeding of Session Case No.304/2024 (State Vs. Shailendra Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0027 of 2024, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(2)va, 3(1)Da, 3(1) Dha of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Pipari, District-Sonbhadra.

¶13

Briefly stated, the informant, Vilasi Devi, lodged an FIR against the present appellants alleging that they were encroaching upon public passage by raising construction. She informed the police authorities, who reached the spot, stopped the construction work and directed the appellants to get the disputed passage demarcated before proceeding further. She stated that the first incident took place on 09.12.2024. It was further alleged that on the next day at about 10:00 a.m., all the appellants came to her house, started abusing her and her family members, and when they objected, they were assaulted by the appellants.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in dispute is exclusively owned by appellant no. 1 and that he was raising construction over his own land, which was objected to by the respondent/informant without any lawful basis. It is submitted that statements of independent

¶15

CRLA No. 756 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

witnesses were recorded during investigation, and they have stated that the disputed land had been purchased by appellant no. 1 through a registered sale deed executed in his favour. The land in question is Khasra No. 806, measuring about 0.0380 hectare. It is further submitted that the relevant revenue records have been annexed along with the appeal.

¶18

It has further been submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to opposition raised by the respondent/informant regarding construction on the said land. It is contended that there is no material on record to indicate that any caste-related remarks were made by the appellants. Such allegations are neither clearly disclosed in the FIR nor substantiated in the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation. It is also pointed out that the FIR was initially lodged against appellant no. 1 along with two other persons, namely Amrit Lal Yadav and Neeraj Yadav, but their names were dropped during investigation, which, according to learned counsel, reflects inconsistency in the prosecution case.

¶19

Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellants were raising construction over a public passage used by villagers. The same was objected to by the informant and the police were called to the spot. It has been specifically mentioned in the FIR that the police had stopped the construction work and directed the appellants to get the land demarcated before proceeding further. This, according to them, shows that the appellants were attempting to raise construction without proper demarcation. It is further submitted that independent witnesses have stated that persons from the neighbourhood had also advised the appellants not to raise construction over the alleged passage. Therefore, the order taking cognizance does not suffer from any illegality.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

The informant, Vilasi Devi, in her statement before the Investigating Officer, stated that appellant no. 1 along with Amrit Lal Yadav and Neeraj Yadav was demarcating the alleged public passage on the relevant date. She, along with other villagers, objected to such demarcation on the ground that the land was being used as a public passage by the villagers. Appellant no. 1, however, asserted his ownership over the land and stated that the alleged passage was passing through his land. She again insisted that construction

¶22

CRLA No. 756 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

should not be raised without proper demarcation, whereafter she informed the police. The police reached the spot and restrained appellant no. 1 from proceeding with the construction. She has further alleged that on the following day, appellant no.1 again reached the spot along with labourers and started digging the foundation. The informant again objected to the same. Thereafter, a quarrel ensued between the parties. On hearing the noise, her son Vijay Shankar, daughter-in-law Sumitra Devi and others reached the spot and also objected to the construction. It is alleged that during this altercation, abuses were exchanged and a scuffle took place between the parties.

¶25

Statements of independent witnesses were also recorded. One such witness, Devendra Singh, stated that appellant no. 1 claimed ownership over the land on the basis of a sale deed and was raising construction accordingly. The informant was objecting and insisting upon demarcation of the land. It is stated that on being called, the police arrived at the spot and advised both parties that construction be carried out only after proper demarcation. Thereafter, both sides dispersed. He further stated that on 10.12.2024 at about 10:00 a.m., when the appellants again attempted to raise construction, a heated exchange took place between the parties. Some person belonging to informant's side threw bricks resulting in head injury to one of the labourers of appellant no.1. He also stated that during the scuffle, appellant Shailendra Singh and Dilip Tiwari sustained minor injuries.

¶26

Other witnesses Smt Shima Devi, Smt.Tara Devi have also made same statement before I.O. Other independent witnesses Bhim has also corroborated the statement of other independent witnesses and has stated one of labour of appellant no.1 Raju Chaudhary sustained head injury after some on belonging to informant's side threw bricks. They have stated that informant herself was bent upon picking a quarrel with appellant no.1 whereas appellant was trying to convince her.They have also stated that this particular incident of throwing brick causing head injury of Raju Chaudhary ignited the dispute resulting into altercation.

¶27

Upon consideration of the entire material collected during investigation, certain material contradictions are apparent on the face of the record. In the FIR, the informant has specifically alleged that on the next day the appellants came to her house and abused and assaulted her and her family members. However, in her statement recorded before the Investigating

¶28

CRLA No. 756 of 2026

¶29

4

¶30

Officer, she has stated that the incident dated 10.12.2024 occurred at the disputed passage where the appellants were raising construction. This material improvement regarding the place of occurrence goes to the root of the prosecution case and creates serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations. It is well settled that where there are material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case, continuation of proceedings would not be justified (see State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604 ).

¶31

It is further noticeable that in the FIR the informant has not specified any particular caste-related words allegedly used by the appellants. There is no mention of the exact casteist expressions either in the FIR or in the statements recorded during investigation. A bald and omnibus allegation that casteist remarks were made, without disclosing the specific words and without prima facie showing that such words were uttered in public view, is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand , AIRONLINE 2020 SC 812 has clearly held that a dispute arising out of property or civil rights would not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless the offence is committed on account of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the necessary ingredients are satisfied.

¶32

Moreover, the statements of independent witnesses, namely Devendra Singh, Smt. Shima Devi, Smt. Tara Devi and Bhim, clearly suggest that the dispute arose out of demarcation of land and that the informant herself was bent upon picking a quarrel, while appellant no. 1 was asserting his ownership and trying to convince her that the disputed land was his agricultural land through which no public passage could pass. The witnesses have also stated that the incident escalated only after a brick was allegedly thrown from the side of the informant, resulting in injury to one of the labourers of appellant no. 1, which ignited the scuffle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 6901 has held that in the absence of specific averments disclosing the ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act, criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature relating to land demarcation, which has been given a criminal colour. The essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly under the SC/ST Act, are not

¶34

CRLA No. 756 of 2026

¶35

5

¶36

prima facie made out from the material on record. As observed in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604 where the allegations do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of the Court.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra, as well as the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 304/2024 (State vs. Shailendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0027 of 2024, are hereby quashed.

¶38

February 24, 2026 Mukesh

¶39

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Shailendra Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Shailendra Singh and 2 Others 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

Similar cases

Om Prakash Yadav and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagendra Yadav @ Bandu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaheen vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Haribhan Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Patel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another