CRLA/2733/2026 of PINTOO Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2733 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Case called out in the revised call. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf. 2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record. 3. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), Meerut in Sessions Case No. 2088 of 2025  (State Vs. Pintoo)  as well as chargesheet No. 172 of 2025 dated 24.08.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of 2025, under Sections- 352, 115(2), 131, 351(2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(5a), 3(1) r  and 3(1)s of S.C. Act. 5.  Learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that incident took place between the parties but neither any specific words relating to the caste remarks words has been mentioned in the FIR nor the statement of the informant and eye witness namely Satpal Singh and injured Ved Prakash have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, no case is made out against the appellant.  6. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant but could not disputed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.  7. 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 eye Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashish Pal, Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Pintoo .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) witness recorded during investigation. 8. From the perusal of the First Information Report and  statements of the informant and eye witness namely Satpal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that although allegations have been made regarding use of caste related words by the accused/appellant, no specific caste-related words have been mentioned either in the FIR or in the statements recorded during the course of investigation. 9. In absence of any explicit or specific allegation disclosing the exact caste- based abusive words, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out.  10. So far as the other offence is concerned, a perusal of the FIR and statement of the eye witness and the injuries received by the injured, prima fecie case is made out against the appellant under Sections- 352, 115(2), 131, 351(2) B.N.S. 10. 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 impugned cognizance order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), Meerut in Sessions Case No. 2088 of 2025  (State Vs. Pintoo), as far as relate to offences Section 3(2)(5a), 3(1) r  and 3(1)s of S.C. Act, are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. Remaining proceedings related to offences under BNS will continue against appellant. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal appeal is party allowed. May 6, 2026 Akbar CRLA No. 2733 of 2026 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad