Uttarakhand High Court
Deepak And Others vs Vikas Kumar on 8 July, 2026
UKHC010158022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1787 of 2025
Deepak and Others ... Applicants
Versus
Vikas Kumar ... Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of present Criminal Misc.
Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicants have sought
quashing of the summoning order dated 04.10.2023
(Annexure No.5 to the accompanying affidavit), passed by
Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the proceeding of Criminal
Misc. Case No. 19 of 2023 (C.I.S. No.36 of 2023), Vikas
Kumar Vs. Deepak and others under Sections 323, 504
and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar.
2. Assailing the impugned summoning order and
the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 19 of
2023, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar,
the learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
the complainant/respondent is not a labourer but a
partner, as is evident from the kirayanama and the
1
cancellation deed, annexure nos. 1 and 2 to the affidavit,
filed in support of the Criminal Misc. Application.
3. On the legal aspect, the learned counsel for the
applicants would submit that even the trial court has not
found the case of the applicants believable in toto.
4. The next submission on behalf of the learned
counsel for the applicants is that there are certain
ingredients to be fulfilled before a person can be
summoned under Section 3(1)(r) and Section and 3(1)(s)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the Act’).
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit
that first of all, there must be an intention to humiliate;
secondly, the complainant, ought to have alleged that the
applicants/accused were not a member of the Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the complainant was
intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with
the intent to humiliate in a place within a public view.
6. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in
(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446, the learned counsel for the
applicants would draw the attention of the Court
particularly to para 6 thereof, which is being extracted
hereunder for ready reference :-
“In the instant case, the allegation of
respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on
27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name
of their caste. According to the basic ingredients
of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to2
have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a
member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted
or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate
in a place within public view. In the entire complaint,
nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant
was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or
intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3
in a place within public view. When the basic
ingredients of the offence are missing in the
complaint, then permitting such a complaint to
continue and to compel the appellant to face the
rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally
unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.”
7. He would submit that the basic ingredients so
as to attract provisions of Section 3(1)(r) after amendment
of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not satisfied in the
present case.
8. In the backdrop of the complaint, he would
submit that in the entire complaint, it has nowhere been
mentioned that the accused were not a member of the
Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe community or
that the humiliation was intentional. He would submit
that the basic ingredients so as to satisfy the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are missing,
hence, the cognizance order and the entire proceedings
would be vitiated.
9. He would further submit that the there is non-
compliance of provisions of Section 202 of the CrPC
inasmuch as some of the applicants reside outside the
3
jurisdiction of the trial court and he would further
submits that the present criminal miscellaneous
application deserves to be allowed.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
complainant/respondent would submit that the
applicants are in the business of mining of the RBM and
the respondent is the head of the labourers, who collect
the RBM and to keep control on the labourers, he has
been named as one of the lessees of the lease executed
between Smt. Mamta Sharma and the firm.
11. Learned counsel for the complainant
/respondent would further submit that in the very
opening para of the complaint, he has stated that he
belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is a poor
person and a labourer. He would refer to two incidents,
one of 17.01.2023 and the later of 23.01.2023 and would
submit that the caste related abuses were hurled within
public view, therefore, the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of the Act would be attracted.
12. He would further submit that the challenge
with regard to the other offences would be in the nature
of entering into the factual arena, and as such, there is
no scope for interference and the instant Criminal
Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the BNSS
deserves to be dismissed.
13. The matter requires scrutiny.
14. Pleadings have already been exchanged.
15. Admit.
16. List for hearing on 28th July, 2026.
4
17. Since the matter has been admitted and it
requires scrutiny, as an interim measure, till the next
date of listing, the further proceedings of Criminal Misc.
Case No. 19 of 2023, Vikas Kumar Vs. Deepak and
others, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar
shall remain stayed.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
08.07.2026
Shiv/
5
