Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajaram @ Rajuram vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 July, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JP:34114]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 168/2021
CNR: RJHC010111562021 | URN: CRLR / 368U / 2021
1. Rajaram @ Rajuram S/o Prabhuram, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Sudsar, P.s. Seruna, District Bikaner (Raj.).
2. Sahiram S/o Prabhuram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Sudsar, P.s. Seruna, District Bikaner (Raj.).
3. Bajrang Lal S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/
o Sudsar, P.s. Seruna, District Bikaner (Raj.).
4. Ramniwas @ Ramdayal S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Sudsar, P.s. Seruna, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Tolaram S/o Shri Chunaram, R/o Sudsar, P.S. Seruna, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
Mr. Ramavatar Singh
Mr. Jai Kishan
Mr. Rakesh Dhaka
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
23/07/2026
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred
assailing the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner in
Sessions Case No.130/2020, whereby charges have been framed
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 323 alternatively 323/34, 427 alternatively 427/34 IPC and
Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (2 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that complainant
Tolaram submitted a written report before Police Station Seruna
alleging inter alia that on 08.08.2019, while he was present at his
agricultural field, the petitioners came there, uprooted the stone
slabs fixed around the boundary of his field and, when he objected
to the same, restrained him, assaulted him, caused damage to his
property and intentionally abused him by using Casteist slurs a
public place and threatened him. On the basis of the said written
report, FIR came to be registered and investigation commenced.
3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
inspected the site of occurrence, recorded the statements of
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, upon completion of
investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 alternatively 323/34,
427 alternatively 427/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. The case was committed to the Court of learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner. After
hearing learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor on the question of charge and considering the
material collected during investigation, the learned trial Court,
vide order dated 18.01.2021, framed charges against the
petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.
5. Mr. Chitlangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has failed to
appreciate the material available on record in its proper
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (3 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]
perspective and has mechanically framed charges without
considering the true nature of the dispute between the parties. It
was submitted that the genesis of the entire prosecution case is a
long-standing dispute regarding agricultural land between the
parties.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are co-
khatedars of the agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.329
and, much prior to the lodging of the FIR in question, proceedings
for demarcation had already been undertaken by the Revenue
Authorities, wherein encroachment over the petitioners’ land by
adjoining khatedars, including the complainant side, was noticed.
It was submitted that on the strength of such demarcation
proceedings, the petitioners’ predecessors had already instituted
revenue proceedings seeking removal of encroachment and had
also initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant party.
Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the present FIR is nothing
but a counterblast to those proceedings.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial
Court has failed to notice that the material collected during
investigation itself indicate that the dispute essentially pertains to
possession and boundary of agricultural land and the allegations
contained in the FIR are intrinsically connected with the said civil
dispute. Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face
value, the essential ingredients constituting an offence under
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent.
8. It was contended that the mere allegation that casteist slurs
were uttered would not ipso facto attract the provisions of the SC/
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (4 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]
ST Act unless there exists prima facie material to indicate that the
alleged insult or intimidation was intentionally directed against the
complainant solely because he belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
9. Learned counsel contended that where the alleged
occurrence arises out of a pre-existing dispute relating to title or
possession over immovable property, invocation of the provisions
of the SC/ST Act would not be justified unless the statutory
ingredients are independently satisfied. To substantiate this
contention, learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs.
State of Uttarakhand; AIR 2020 SC 5584, wherein it has been
categorically held that every insult or intimidation to a member of
a Scheduled Caste would not constitute an offence under the Act
unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim
belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court further held that where the dispute essentially
arises out of a property dispute between the parties, the
provisions of the SC/ST Act cannot be invoked merely because one
of the parties belongs to a Scheduled Caste, unless the necessary
ingredients of the offence are otherwise established.
10. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors.; 2015
(3) SCC 424 to contend that although at the stage of framing
charge the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous
appreciation of evidence, it is nevertheless required to satisfy itself
that the material placed before it discloses the essential
ingredients constituting the alleged offences and that continuation
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (5 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]
of prosecution for an offence whose foundational ingredients are
absent would amount to abuse of the process of law.
11. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the
impugned order and submitted that the learned trial Court has
passed a well-reasoned order after considering the material
collected during investigation. It was argued that the FIR as well
as the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specifically
attribute overt acts to the petitioners and disclose commission of
the offences alleged against them.
It was further submitted that at the stage of framing charge,
the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case
exists and detailed appreciation of evidence is wholly
impermissible. He thus prayed that no interference is warranted in
the present case.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
impugned order as well as material available on record.
13. At the outset, it is noted that the scope of interference in
revision against an order framing charge is extremely limited. At
the stage of framing charge, the Court is only required to examine
whether the material collected during investigation gives rise to a
prima facie case or grave suspicion against the accused. A
meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudication upon the
probable defence of the accused is wholly impermissible at such
stage. Consequently, insofar as the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, alternatively 323/34, 427, alternatively 427/34
IPC are concerned, the statements of the complainant and the
witnesses recorded during investigation do disclose a prima facie
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (6 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]
case warranting continuation of trial. This Court, therefore, finds
no infirmity in the impugned order to that extent.
14. However, the position stands on a different footing insofar as
the charge framed under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
concerned. The material available on record itself indicates that
the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of an
existing dispute relating to agricultural land and alleged
encroachment. The record further reveals that civil as well as
criminal proceedings between the parties were already pending
much prior to the registration of the present FIR. Thus, the
genesis of the occurrence appears to be the long-standing land
dispute between neighbouring khatedars.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (Supra),
while considering the scope of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act (which is
pari materia with the allegations in the present matter), has
categorically held that every insult or abuse directed towards a
member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would not
ipso facto attract the provisions of the Act. The Court observed
that the offence is made out only when the insult or intimidation is
intentionally directed against the victim because of his or her
caste. In Hitesh Verma (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
“All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under
the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the
victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe… The
property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and
a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (7 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]unless the allegations are on account of the victim being a
Scheduled Caste.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed:-
“The assertion of title over land by either of the parties is not due
to indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right
to avail remedies in accordance with law.”
16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the allegations emanate from a dispute
concerning possession and demarcation of agricultural land. The
prosecution material does not prima facie indicate that the alleged
abuses were directed against the complainant solely on account of
his caste identity. Rather, the allegations appear to have arisen in
the course of an existing land dispute between the parties. In such
circumstances, the essential ingredient required for constituting an
offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act cannot be said to be
prima facie established.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta (Supra) has
reiterated that although the Court, at the stage of framing charge,
is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of
evidence, it is nevertheless under an obligation to examine
whether the basic ingredients constituting the alleged offence are
disclosed from the material collected during investigation. Where
the foundational ingredients of a particular offence are absent,
continuation of prosecution for such offence would amount to
abuse of the process of law and interference would be justified
even at the threshold.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the statements
of the complainant and other witnesses furnish sufficient prima
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (8 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]
facie material to proceed against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under the provisions of the IPC, the same material falls
short of disclosing the essential ingredients necessary for framing
charge under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Consequently, the learned trial Court committed an error in
mechanically framing charge under the said provision without
examining whether the allegations satisfied the statutory
ingredients explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (Supra) and Sonu
Gupta (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that while
the material available on record discloses a prima facie case for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, alternatively
323/34, 427, alternatively 427/34 IPC, the essential ingredients
constituting the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 are not prima facie made out. Consequently, interference
with the impugned order is warranted only to the said limited
extent.
20. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases,
Bikaner in Sessions Case No.130/2020 is hereby set aside only to
the extent it frames charge against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34114] (9 of 9) [CRLR-168/2021]
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the
petitioners are discharged from the said offence.
21. However, the charges framed against the petitioners for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, alternatively
323/34, 427, alternatively 427/34 IPC are affirmed. The learned
trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
22. The interim order dated 04.03.2021 passed by this Court
stands vacated. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed
of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
8/Divya Raj Jasmatiya/660
(Uploaded on 27/07/2026 at 06:29:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/07/2026 at 07:13:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
