JUDGMENT : (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. Instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 been filed by the appellants to set aside/quash the chargesheet filed in the case by police after investigation against the appellants and set aside the summoning order dated 17.5.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Gonda, in Sessions Trial No.453 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.0125 of 2023, under Sections 323, 354-Kha, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, State vs. Harishchandra and others. 3. As per the office report dated 15.9.2023, notice issued by this Court has been served on respondent No.2 but none appeared on her behalf to press present criminal appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the informant Smt. Kanchan moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) for registration of case and investigation by police with averments that the applicant belongs to scheduled caste and a poor lady. The accused persons are influential and powerful persons. There is enmity of land dispute between the informant and accused persons. The accused persons are trying to grab her land and to achieve this object, on 28.9.2022, at about 12:00 hours in the day they came to the house of informant armed with clubs, sticks and farsa. They started abusing her, gave beating to her mother-in-law and extended threat of life to her. When the informant went to save her mother-in-law, they started beating her and torn her blouse. The informant came inside her home to save her life, the accused persons trespassed into the house by pushing the door and insulted the applicant and her mother-in-law by using caste specific words. They also abused her and stated to get the house vacated. They began damaging the households and also threw the some goods outside. The localites came and intervened, then the accused persons went away with threatening to vacate the land. Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, directed registration of a case and investigation on said application. They also abused her and stated to get the house vacated. They began damaging the households and also threw the some goods outside. The localites came and intervened, then the accused persons went away with threatening to vacate the land. Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, directed registration of a case and investigation on said application. Police investigated the case and filed chargesheet against accused persons under Sections 504, 506, 323, 354-Kha, 452, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) by finding complicity of accused persons. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence on the basis of chargesheet against present appellants and issued summons to them for their appearance to face trial vide order dated 17.5.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) are not made out in the case. The injuries of informant and her mother-in-law as shown in their respective injury reports are of simple in nature. There is no description of contents or the words allegedly used by the appellants to insult the informant and her mother-in-law by using that they belong to scheduled caste. A perusal of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not countenance the allegations that the accused persons assaulted or committed any offending act against the informant or her mother-in-law by only reason that they belong to scheduled caste. In fact the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case due to land dispute between the family of informant and accused persons. An FIR antecedent in time to present FIR at the instant of Naina Devi, mother of the appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 was lodged on 28.9.2022, vide Crime No.413 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against Suresh and Brhmadan, who are relatives of present informant and present case is counter blast of said FIR dated 28.9.2022 and in that case also, chargesheet has been filed on 7.10.2022. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the informant in present case on 18.10.2022, in which the incident of same date is shown, thus both the cases may be treated as cross-case. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the informant in present case on 18.10.2022, in which the incident of same date is shown, thus both the cases may be treated as cross-case. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgement of Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668, wherein Apex Court in SLP filed against dismissal of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the appellants above cited judicial pronouncements in a cases under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act placed reliance on its previous judgement passed in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttrakhand and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 and observed in paragraph No.18 as under:- "18. That apart, assuming arguendo that the appellant had hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with a view to insult or humiliate him, the same does not advance the case of the complainant any further to bring it within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. We have noted from the first F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet that the same makes no reference to the utterances of the appellant during the course of verbal altercation or to the caste to which the complainant belonged, except for the allegation/observation that caste-related abuses were hurled. The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks. Since section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.PC and having regard to the overriding effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R. (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge-sheet (which is prepared based either on statements of witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence. Even for the limited test that has to be applied in a case of the present nature, the charge-sheet dated 21st January, 2016 does not make out any case of an offence having been committed by the appellant under section 3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant next placed reliance on a judgement of Apex Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttrakhand and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , wherein Apex Court in criminal appeal filed against the order of Uttrakhand High Court passed in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. observed in paragraph Nos.13 and 15 as under:- "13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet." 7. In B. Venkateswaran and Others vs. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 14, Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the impugned order passed by High Court of Madras under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceeding instituted by the private respondent against the petitioner for offence under Section 3(1)(v) and (va) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act. In B. Venkateswaran and Others vs. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 14, Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the impugned order passed by High Court of Madras under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceeding instituted by the private respondent against the petitioner for offence under Section 3(1)(v) and (va) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "It appears that a private dispute was going on between the parties with respect to the illegal construction. As per the allegations in the complaint, the original complainant had purchased the vacant land and constructed the building. In the entire complaint, there are no allegations that the complainant is obstructed and / or interfered with enjoyment of his right on his property deliberately and willfully knowing that complainant belongs to SC/ST. From the material on record, it appears that a civil dispute is converted into criminal dispute and that too for the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It seems that the private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings. Initiation of the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer made in present criminal revision and submitted that the judgement cited by learned counsel for the revisionist given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in orders passed by concerned High Court on petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that second prayer made by the appellant in present appeal is not cognizable in criminal appeal as that relates to quashment of chargesheet, which can only be challenged in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He next submitted that all the grounds taken in present appeal may be taken by the appellant in application under Section 228 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge before the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the relief sought in present appeal are not barred under law and this Court is empowered to consider the same and pass the appropriate orders in present criminal appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the relief sought in present appeal are not barred under law and this Court is empowered to consider the same and pass the appropriate orders in present criminal appeal. 9. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, allegations leveled against the appellants and material on record, this court find that in FIR a general allegation has been made by he informant that the accused persons at the time of incident insulted the informant and her mother-in-law by using caste specific words but the contents of those words are not divulged in FIR, even in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the contents of those caste specific words were not disclosed. The incident of abusing, assaulting, threatening are alleged to have occurred outside and inside the house of the informant and there is no allegations either in FIR or in statement of victims under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused persons had insulted them in public view by using caste specific words. 10. There appears land dispute between the parties before the day of incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the informant or her mother-in-law were assaulted or abused or threatened by the accused persons only due to the fact that they belong to scheduled caste. This Court is of the considered opinion that the charge under Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act are not made out in the case against the present appellants. Therefore, the summoning order of the appellants in said provisions under SC/ST Act is liable to be quashed. This Court has not given any opinion with regard to other charges under IPC and trial may be commenced by the learned trial court in accordance with law for those charges. However, the appellants will be at liberty to file discharge application for those charges before learned court below, if they consider it proper at appropriate stage and it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed of expeditiously, of course, subject to provisions of bail applicable in the case. 11. Accordingly, present appeal is partly allowed and the summoning order dated 17.5.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Gonda for charge under SC/ST Act is hereby quashed with above observations. 12. 11. Accordingly, present appeal is partly allowed and the summoning order dated 17.5.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Gonda for charge under SC/ST Act is hereby quashed with above observations. 12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Gonda is at liberty to frame charges under IPC against the appellants after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides and in case charges are framed, the case will be remanded to learned CJM concerned for trial.