HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Bhoopnarayan Pal Gram Pradhan Lohna .....Appellant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. Learned A.G.A. submitted that notice issued to the respondent/informant has been duly served; however, none has appeared on behalf of the said respondent to oppose the present appeal. A copy of the service report supplied by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant seeking to allow the appeal and to set aside the order dated 08.11.2023 as well as Charge-sheet No. 1 of 2023 dated 17.09.2023 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 316 of 2023 (State v. Bhoopnarayan Pal) under Section 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(dha) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, arising out of Case Crime No. 0346 of 2023, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, whereby the appellant has been summoned under the aforesaid provisions.

4. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the appellant by the informant Rajmani Bhartiya, Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Vikas Khand Kada, District Kaushambi, alleging therein that the appellant, who is the Gram Pradhan of village Lohna, District Kaushambi, used caste- about 11:30 A.M. on 08.08.2023. It was alleged that the informant had contacted the appellant over telephone to enquire about execution of certain public welfare schemes, whereupon the appellant, who was allegedly ignoring priority development works, abused the informant and also used casteist slurs. On the basis of the said allegations, the FIR was lodged under Section 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(dha) of the S.C./S.T. Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and cognizance was taken by the learned court for offences under the aforesaid provisions.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned cognizance and summoning order is illegal and suffers from material irregularities. It was argued that the allegations made against the appellant are false, fictitious and motivated. No such incident ever took place as alleged by the informant. It was further submitted that even if the allegations are taken to be true on their face value, no offence under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out, inasmuch as the alleged incident took place during a telephonic conversation and not in any place within public view. Hence, the order dated 08.11.2023 taking cognizance against the appellant is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the informant has supported the prosecution version in his statement recorded during investigation. However, he fairly conceded that as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged abusive words were spoken during a telephonic conversation between the informant and the appellant.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record, including the impugned summoning order.

8. Upon careful consideration of the material on record, it is apparent that the entire prosecution case rests upon the allegation that the appellant the informant. There is no allegation that the incident took place at any public place or in the presence of any member of the public. The essential ingredient of "public view", which is sine qua non for attracting the provisions of Sections 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, is conspicuously absent in the present case.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, has categorically held that for an offence under the S.C./S.T. Act to be made out, the allege