IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8182 of 2019 ALKESH AND OTHERS Versus PRAVEEN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rishiraj Trivedi - Advocate for the appellants. Shri Gaurav Laad- Advocate for the appellant no.2.

Shri Navendu Joshi- Advocate for the appellant-[P-8].

Shri Ambuj Patel - GA for the State.

Shri Anshul Shrivastava- Advocate for the respondent [R-3].

(Heard on: 13.01.2026)

(Delivered on: 02.02.2026)

JUDGMENT This criminal appeal under section 14A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 374 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2016 in SC ATR No.20026/2016 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 West Nimar, Mandaleshwar (M.P.) arising out of crime No.79/2016 registered at P.S.- Balakwada, District- Khargone (M.P.) whereby charges under section 147, 323 read with section 149 (5 counts), 294, 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and section 3(2)

(5A) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 have been framed against the appellants. 2. Facts in brief are that victims Antim, Praveen and Ravindra belongs to scheduled tribe community whereas appellants/accused persons does not belongs to SC/ST community. First Information Report was lodged on 12.04.2016 at 7:30 p.m. regarding the incident dated 12.04.2016 at 6 p.m. of Police Chauki- Khaltaka of Police Station Bakalwada, District Khargone (M.P) regarding incident in which 5 persons including 3 persons belongs to scheduled tribe community were assaulted in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly, injuries were caused and abusive words were uttered in public place causing annoyance and threat of live was extended. After investigation, a final report was submitted and trial court framed charges as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment.

3. This criminal appeal is preferred on the ground that appellants have been falsely implicated under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the complainant party which is apparently an afterthought as in the FIR dated 12/04/2016, there is not a whisper regarding the caste of the complainant or any other person and it was simply a trivial dispute which arose after the appellant No.1 fell on the complainant in the crowd.

4. Counsel has further submitted that not only in the FIR, but in the subsequent statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded on 13/04/2016 i.e. one day after the incident, there is again no reference of any caste or any aspersions made on the caste of the complainant party. However, after around 3 days short of one month from the date of incident, i.e. on 10/05/2016, one of the injured witness Antim who, in his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not mention his caste, has improvised his statement and has alleged involvement of the caste of the complainant party in the dispute and it has been alleged that the appellants also made aspersions on the caste of the complainant party. Thus, counsel has submitted that the complainant party, after realizing that they can also falsely implicate the appellants in the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as they belong to SC/ST community, has falsely implicated the appellants and in such circumstances, the petition is liable to be allowed and the charges framed under Section 3(2)(5A) of the SC/ST Act is liable to be quashed.

5. Heard.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.

7. Counsel for the victims have also opposed the criminal appeal.

8. Perused the record.

9. Before proceeding further court is referring to Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as below:-

"3. Punishments for offences atrocities.—

(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste o