When a person ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his conversion to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke provisions of SC/ST(Atrocities) Act

1) Leave granted.

2) The present Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated

30.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh1 at Amaravati in

Criminal Petition No. 7114 of 2022 filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 19732, whereby, the High Court has quashed the

criminal proceedings against respondent nos. 2 to 7 in Spl. SC No. 36 of 2021

arising out of FIR No. 08 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19893 and Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 on the file of the Special Court

under the SC/ST Act, Guntur District.

1 ‘High Court’

2 ‘Cr.PC’

3 ‘SC/ST Act’

4 ‘IPC’

FACTUAL MATRIX

3) The appellant in the present proceedings is Chinthada Anand, resident

of Kothapalem Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Guntur District. He claims

to belong to the Madiga community, a Scheduled Caste and states that for

nearly ten years prior to the incident, he had been conducting Sunday prayer

meetings as a Pastor at different houses in the village, including the house of

one Doma Koti Reddy.

4) According to the appellant, in December 2020, he began receiving

abusive and intimidating telephone calls from unknown numbers, in which

he was allegedly abused by caste-based slurs and was threatened with dire

consequences. These calls, according to him, were on account of his religious

activities and his presence in the village as a Pastor.

5) The first incident is stated to have occurred on 03.01.2021. The

appellant alleges that while he was conducting Sunday prayers at around

noon at the house of Doma Koti Reddy, one of the accused called him outside,

assaulted him by slapping and striking him, abused him by referring to his

caste, and warned him against continuing the prayer meetings. The appellant

states that he did not retaliate.

6) The second and principal incident is stated to have occurred on

24.01.2021. It is alleged that after completing Sunday prayers and while

returning home, the appellant was wrongfully restrained at the entrance of

the nearby hamlet by respondent nos. 2 to 7 and twenty-five others. He alleged

that his mobile phone and vehicle keys were forcibly snatched, he was

dragged, beaten and abused by caste name in public view, and threatened

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 3 of 33

with death. It is also alleged that threats were extended to kill his family

members and kidnap his children.

7) On the next day, i.e., 25.01.2021, the appellant submitted a written

complaint before Chandole Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint,

FIR No. 08 of 2021 came to be registered on 26.01.2021 for the offences

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and

Sections 341, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

8) Investigation was undertaken by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Bapatla. During the course of investigation, statements of the appellant, his

wife and several villagers were recorded. The appellant was medically

examined and the injury sustained by him was certified to be simple in

nature. The Tahsildar conducted verification regarding the caste status of the

appellant and issued a certificate showing him as belonging to Hindu-Madiga

community (Scheduled Caste), while the accused persons admittedly

belonged to the Reddy community (OC category).

9) Upon completion of investigation, the Police filed the charge-sheet on

30.04.2021, which was taken on file as Spl. SC No. 36 of 2021 before the

Special Court under the SC/ST Act for Guntur District. All the

aforementioned offences were included in the charge-sheet.

10) The accused persons thereafter approached the High Court by filing a

petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashing of the proceedings.

The primary ground urged before the High Court was that the appellant had

admittedly converted to Christianity and was working as a Pastor for about

ten years, and therefore, in view of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 4 of 33

1950, he could not legally claim the status of a Scheduled Caste so as to

invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

11) Vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2025, the High Court had

quashed the entire criminal proceedings in Spl. SC No. 36 of 2021 qua

respondent nos. 2 to 7, holding inter alia that the appellant cannot claim

protection under the SC/ST Act since he had been openly professing

Christianity and working as a Pastor for about a decade. The High Court was

of the view that caste system is not recognised in Christianity and that a

person who has converted and continues to actively work as a Pastor and

profess Christianity, cannot, in law, claim protection under the SC/ST Act.

12) Further, the High Court noted that the statements of witnesses did not

consistently support the appellant’s version of a large group assault, and only

a limited corroboration was available for the alleged restraint and attack, the

medical evidence showed only a simple injury sustained by the appellant. On

an overall assessment, the High Court held that continuation of the criminal

proceedings against respondent nos. 2 to 7 would amount to an abuse of the

process of law.

13) Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal challenging

the quashing of proceedings against respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in Spl. SC No. 36

of 2021 arising out of FIR No. 08 of 2021.

SUBMISSION OF PARTIES

14) We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused

the materials on record.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 5 of 33

15) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court

wrongly quashed the criminal proceedings against respondent nos. 2 to 7

despite there being a prima facie case made out against them. Learned

counsel highlighted that the High Court failed to appreciate that the appellant

was subjected to physical assault as well as caste-based insults, was also

intimidated by the accused persons.

16) Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High

Court gravely erred in holding that the appellant was disentitled from invoking

the provisions of the SC/ST Act, merely on account of his conversion to

Christianity. It was argued that caste is a matter of birth and not of faith, and

a change of religion does not wipe out the social identity and historical

disadvantages attached to one’s caste.

17) To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed

reliance on G.O. Ms. No. 341 dated 30.08.1977, issued by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh, which specifically stipulates that mere change of religion

shall not operate as a bar to Scheduled Caste persons from securing the

benefits to which they were otherwise entitled prior to conversion.

18) Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7 supported

the impugned judgment and submitted that the High Court has rightly

exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash the

proceedings, as the very foundation for invoking the provisions of the SC/ST

Act was absent.

19) Learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant is admittedly a

Pastor, performing Sunday prayers for more than a decade, and by his own

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 6 of 33

showing professes and practises Christianity. In such a situation, he cannot

claim the protection of the SC/ST Act, which is applicable only to persons

who are members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes within the

ambit of clauses (24) and (25) of Article 366 read with Articles 341 and 342 of

the Constitution of India, 1950.

20) Learned senior counsel pointed out that Clause 3 of the Constitution

(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 unequivocally provides that no person who

professes a religion different from Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism shall be

deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. It was further argued that the

expression “professes” has consistently been interpreted by this Court to

mean open declaration or practice of a religion, and that the relevant test is

the material time when the benefit is claimed.

21) Learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7 further argued that

the sine qua non for offences under the SC/ST Act is that the victim must be

a bona fide SC/ST member. It was highlighted that where the appellant does

not belong to an SC/ST community, the very jurisdictional requirement for

applying the SC/ST Act fails. Hence, according to the learned senior counsel,

the High Court rightly quashed the proceedings.

22) It has been contended by learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 2

to 7 that the appellant’s reliance on a purported caste certificate is of no

assistance. It is pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest

that the appellant reconverted to Hinduism or that the community accepted

him back. Therefore, mere production of a certificate cannot override the

admitted fact that the appellant is a practising Christian.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 7 of 33

23) Learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7 submitted that

reliance of the appellant on G.O.Ms. No. 341 issued by the State is wholly

misplaced since an executive order cannot override the Presidential Order

issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, and the State has no

authority to enlarge, modify, or alter the Scheduled Caste list.

24) Lastly, the learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7 submitted

that the present case concerns criminal prosecution, and no person can be

subjected to penal consequences under the SC/ST Act unless the appellant

indisputably falls within the definition of “Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe” under the Constitution of India. The High Court, therefore, according

to learned senior counsel, has correctly held that, in the absence of such

foundational facts, continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of

process.

ANALYSIS

25) Before considering the correctness of the High Court’s decision to quash

the criminal proceedings against respondent nos. 2 to 7, it becomes necessary

to first delineate the broader legal issue that arises, namely, the conditions

under which a person, who has undergone religious conversion, may avail the

statutory benefits granted to the members of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes. The clarification of this overarching principle is essential,

as the resolution of the present controversy must rest upon its proper

application.

26) To address the aforesaid issue, it is appropriate to state the authorities

which talk about the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Under the

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 8 of 33

Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 341 and 342 enumerate about the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The relevant Articles are reproduced

hereinbelow:

“341. Scheduled Castes.—(1) The President may with

respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a

State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by

public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or

parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall

for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be

Scheduled Castes in relation to that State8[or Union

territory, as the case may be.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the

list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued

under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group

within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a

notification issued under the said clause shall not be

varied by any subsequent notification.

342. Scheduled Tribes.—(1) The President may with

respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a

State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by

public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities

or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities

which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be

deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or

Union territory, as the case may be.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the

list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued

under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of

or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as

aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall

not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

27) The core object of the above provisions is to provide right for the purpose

of affording protection to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes having

regard to the backwardness they suffer. The question which is now required

to be posed at the outset is what is a ‘tribe’?

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 9 of 33

28) In State of Kerala vs. Chandramohan5, a three-Judge Bench of this

Court had the opportunity to discuss the concept of ‘tribe’ and its

characteristics. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:

“4. The object of the said provision is to provide right for

the purpose of grant of protection to the Scheduled Tribes

having regard to the economic and educational

backwardness wherefrom they suffer. For the

aforementioned purpose only the President of India has

been authorised to issue the notification to parts or groups

within the tribes. It is not in dispute that the Constitution

(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 made in terms of the

aforementioned provisions is exhaustive. The question

which is required to be posed at the outset is what is a

tribe?

“Tribe has been defined as a social group of a

simple kind, the members of which speak

common dialect, have a single government and

act together for such common purposes as

warfare. Other typical characteristics include a

common name, a contiguous territory, a

relatively uniform culture or way of life and a

tradition of common descent. Tribes are usually

composed of a number of local communities e.g.

bands, villages or neighbourhoods and are often

aggregated in clusters of a higher order called

nations. The term is seldom applied to societies

that have achieved a strictly territorial

organisation in large States but is usually

confined to groups whose unity is based primarily

upon a sense of extended kinship ties though it

is no longer used for kin groups in the strict

sense, such as clans.”

(See Dr Gupta, Jai Prakash: The Customary Laws of

the Munda & the Oraon.)

“Tribe in the Dictionary of Anthropology is

defined as ‘a social group, usually with a definite

area, dialect, cultural homogeneity, and unifying

social organization. It may include several

subgroups, such as sibs or villages. A tribe

ordinarily has a leader and may have a common

ancestor, as well as patron deity. The families or

small communities making up the tribe are

linked through economic, social, religious,

family, or blood ties’.”

(See Bhowmik, K.L.: Tribal India: A Profile in Indian

Ethnology.)”

(emphasis supplied)

5 (2004) 3 SCC 429

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 10 of 33

29) Under clause (1) of Article 342, the President of India promulgated the

Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, identifying the tribes and tribal

communities recognised as “Scheduled Tribes” for different States and Union

Territories. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950

1. This Order may be called the Constitution (Scheduled

Tribes) Order, 1950.

2. The Tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or

groups within, tribes or tribal communities, specified in

Parts I to XXII of the Schedule to this Order shall, in

relation to the States to which those Parts respectively

relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards

members thereof residents in the localities specified in

relation to them respectively in those Parts of that

Schedule.

3. Any reference in this Order to State or to a district or

other territorial division thereof shall be construed as a

reference to the State, district or other territorial division

as constituted on the 1st day of May, 1976.”

30) A person can claim benefits under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)

Order, 1950 only if he/she continues to belong to that particular tribe in

substance. If, due to conversion or long-term abandonment of tribal customs,

his/her tribal identity is in doubt, that question becomes a factual matter to

be determined at trial. In this regard, this Court in Chandramohan (supra)

had observed:

“16. Before a person can be brought within the

purview of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)

Order, 1950, he must belong to a tribe. A person for

the purpose of obtaining the benefits of the

Presidential Order must fulfil the condition of being

a member of a tribe and continue to be a member of

the tribe. If by reason of conversion to a different

religion a long time back, he/his ancestors have not

been following the customs, rituals and other traits,

which are required to be followed by the members of

the tribe and even had not been following the

customary laws of succession, inheritance, marriage

etc. he may not be accepted to be a member of a

tribe. In this case, it has been contended that the family

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 11 of 33

of the victim had been converted about 200 years back

and in fact the father of the victim married a woman

belonging to a Roman Catholic, wherefrom he again

became a Roman Catholic. The question, therefore,

which may have to be gone into is as to whether the

family continued to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe

or not. Such a question can be gone into only during

trial.”

(emphasis supplied)

31) From the above, it becomes clear, that once a person belonging to a

Scheduled Tribe converts to another religion, ultimately through the passage

of time, the customs, rituals and other traits of that particular tribe may fall

into eclipse. If so, in such circumstance, it is proved that the person in

question has completely renounced himself from the customs, rituals and

other traits of his tribe, and has assimilated into the converted religion

following the practices and customs of that particular religion, a reasonable

inference can be drawn that such a person shall not be considered a part of

the tribe.

32) Let us now pivot to the legal foundations of Scheduled Castes. The

initial question which is required to be posed is what is a ‘caste’?

33) In C.M. Arumugam vs. S Rajagopal6, a three-Judge Bench of this

Court had the opportunity to discuss on the question: what is ‘caste’? The

relevant observation is reproduced hereinbelow:

“10. But that immediately raises the question: what is a

caste? When we speak of a caste, we do not mean to

refer in this context to the four primary castes, but to

the multiplicity of castes and sub-castes which

disfigure the Indian social scene. “A caste”, as pointed

out by the High Court of Madras in Coopoosami Chetty

v. Duraisami Chetty [ILR 33 Mad 67] “is a voluntary

association of persons for certain purposes”. It is a well

defined yet fluctuating group of persons governed by

their own rules and regulations for certain internal

purposes. Sir H. Risley has shown in his book on People

6 (1976) 1 SCC 863

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 12 of 33

of India how castes are formed based not only on

community of religion, but also on community of

functions. It is also pointed out by Sankaran Nair, J. in

Muthusami v. Masilamani [ILR 33 Mad 342 : 20 Mad LJ

49] :

“… a change in the occupation sometimes creates

a new caste. A common occupation sometimes

combines members of different castes into a

distinct body which becomes a new caste.

Migration to another place makes sometimes a

new caste.”

A caste is more a social combination than a religious

group. But since, as pointed out by Rajamannar, C.J.,

in G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran [AIR 1952 Mad 474]

ethics provides the standard for social life and it is

founded ultimately on religious beliefs and doctrines,

religion is inevitably mixed up with social conduct and

that is why caste has become an integral feature of

Hindu society. But from that it does not necessarily

follow as an invariable rule that whenever a person

renounces Hinduism and embraces another religious

faith, he automatically ceases to be a member of the

caste in which he was born and to which he belonged

prior to his conversion. It is no doubt true, and there

we agree with the Madras High Court in G. Michael case

that the general rule is that conversion operates as an

expulsion from the caste, or, in other words, the

convert ceases to have any caste, because caste is

predominantly a feature of Hindu society and

ordinarily a person who ceases to be a Hindu would not

be regarded by the other members of the caste as

belonging to their fold. But ultimately it must depend

on the structure of the caste and its rules and

regulations whether a person would cease to belong to

the caste on his abjuring Hinduism.”

(emphasis supplied)

34) In exercise of powers conferred under clause (1) of Article 341 of the

Constitution, the President issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order,

1950. This Order specifies the castes deemed to be Scheduled Castes in

relation to various States and Union territories. The said Order is reproduced

hereinbelow:

“Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950

1. This Order may be called the Constitution (Scheduled

Castes) Order, 1950.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 13 of 33

2. Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes, races

or tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes

specified in Parts to [XXV] of the Schedule to this Order

shall, in relation to the States to which those Parts

respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so

far as regards member thereof resident in the localities

specified in relation to them in those Parts of that

Schedule.

[3. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph

2, no person who professes a religion different from the

Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist] religion shall be

deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

[4. Any reference in this Order to a State or to a district or

other territorial division thereof shall be construed as a

reference to the State, district or other territorial division

as constituted on the 1st day of May, 1976.”

(emphasis supplied)

35) The question as to whether a person is a member of Scheduled Caste

or Scheduled Tribe remains an absolute question of fact. In the instant case,

the legislative history of Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)

Order, 1950 is of immense significance. As originally enacted in the year 1950,

Clause 3 restricted Scheduled Caste status to persons professing the Hindu

religion. It was subsequently amended in the year 1956 to include persons

professing the Sikh religion. Later, in the year 1990, the provision was further

extended to include persons professing the Buddhist religion. It is important

to note that Christianity has not been included under this Order by any of

these amendments.

36) A careful perusal of Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,

1950 reveals that the term “professes” is of crucial significance. The clause

excludes any person who professes a religion different from Hindu, Sikh or

Buddhist from being deemed a member of a Scheduled Caste. It is, therefore,

necessary to examine what constitutes to professing a religion.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 14 of 33

37) The interpretation of the term “profess” as used in Clause 3 of the

Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 came up for consideration

before this Court in Punjabrao vs. D.P. Meshram7, wherein it was observed

thus:

“13. What clause (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled

Castes) Order, 1950 contemplates is that for a person

to be treated as one belonging to a Scheduled Caste

within the meaning of that Order, he must be one who

professes either Hindu or Sikh religion. The High

Court, following its earlier decision

in Karwadi v. Shambharkar [AIR 1958 Bom 296] has

said that the meaning of the phrase “professes a

religion” in the aforementioned provision is “to enter

publicly into a religions state” and that for this

purpose a mere declaration by a person that he has

ceased to belong to a particular religion and embraced

another religion would not be sufficient. The meanings

of the word “profess” have been given thus

in Webster’s New World Dictionary:“to avow publicly;

to make an open declaration of … to declare one’s

belief in : as, to profess Christ. To accept into a

religious order”. The meanings given in the Shorter

Oxford Dictionary are more or less the same. It seems

to us that the meaning “to declare one’s belief in : as

to profess Christ” is one which we have to bear in mind

while construing the aforesaid order because it is this

which bears upon religious belief and consequently

also upon a change in religious belief. It would thus

follow that a declaration of one’s belief must

necessarily mean a declaration in such a way that it

would be known to those whom it may interest.

Therefore, if a public declaration is made by a person

that he has ceased to belong to his old religion and has

accepted another religion he will be taken as

professing the other religion. In the face of such an

open declaration it would be idle to enquire further as

to whether the conversion to another religion was

efficacious. The word “profess” in the Presidential

Order appears to have been used in the sense of an

open declaration or practice by a person of the Hindu

(or the Sikh) religion. Where, therefore, a person says,

on the contrary, that he has ceased to be a Hindu he

cannot derive any benefit from that Order.”

(emphasis supplied)

7 1964 SCC OnLine SC 76

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 15 of 33

38) It is clear from the aforesaid interpretation that the term “profess”

connotes to publicly declare or practice a religion. The essence of the word

lies in the open avowal of one’s religious beliefs in a manner discernible to the

public at large. It is not merely a question of personal belief or private

conviction, but requires an outward manifestation of one’s faith.

39) It may be observed that Christianity, by its very theological foundation,

does not recognize or incorporate the institution of caste. The foundational

Christian scripture, The New Testament states: There is neither Jew nor

Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one

in Christ Jesus.8 Christianity in India exists in several denominational forms:

Roman Catholics (who adhere to liturgical traditions of the Latin Church),

various Protestant denominations (including the Church of South India,

Baptist, Lutheran, and Pentecostal churches), and the ancient Syrian

Christian communities.

40) The aforesaid denominational distinctions arise from differences in

theological interpretation, liturgical practice (the form of worship) and

ecclesiastical governance (the organizational framework within the church).

They do not represent any caste-based hierarchal stratifications.

41) In the present case, the facts are unequivocal. The appellant has been

serving as a Pastor for the past ten years. The appellant is also the treasurer

of the Pastors fellowship in Pittalavanipalem. The evidence further reveals that

the appellant conducted prayer meetings on Sundays at the residence of one

Doma Koti Reddy in Kohapalem Village, and regularly performed pastoral

8 Galatians 3:28 ( NIV) Galatians 3:28 NIV – There is neither Jew nor Gentile, – Bible Gateway

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 16 of 33

duties including preaching and conducting religious services for the Christian

congregation.

42) A pastor occupies a position of religious leadership within the Christian

faith, entrusted with the responsibility of preaching the gospel and conducting

religious services in accordance with the Christian doctrine. The appellant’s

occupation and conduct over this extended period constitute an open and

public declaration of his Christian faith. Viewing through the lens of

Punjabrao (supra), the appellant indubitably professes Christianity within

the meaning of Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950.

43) It is an admitted fact that the appellant previously belonged to the

Madiga community, which is specified at Serial No. 32 in Part I (Andhra

Pradesh) of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950,

and is recognized as a Scheduled Caste. Had the appellant continued to

profess Hinduism, his status as a member of the Scheduled Caste would have

been beyond question. However, the appellant now professes Christianity.

44) Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is

categorical and unambiguous in its terms. It provides that notwithstanding

anything contained in Clause 2, no person who professes a religion different

from Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled

Caste. The appellant professes Christianity, which is not among the three

religions specified in Clause 3. Irrespective of the appellant’s caste of origin,

he cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. However, the

learned counsel for the appellant has sought to challenge this position by

placing reliance on certain State Government Orders.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 17 of 33

45) The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon G.O. Ms

No.341, Social Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated

30.08.1977, which extends certain concessions granted to Scheduled Castes

(Hindus) by the State Government to Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity

and Buddhism. It is contended that in view of this Government Order, the

appellant ought to be recognized as a member of the Scheduled Caste for the

purposes of invoking the provisions of the SC/ST Act. For proper appreciation

of this contention, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portions of

G.O.Ms. No.341 dated 30.08.1977:

“Government of Andhra Pradesh Abstract

Social Welfare (PR) Department

Dated: 30.08.1977

Social Welfare-Scheduled Caste Converts to Christianity

and Buddhism-Non-Statutory Concession available for

Scheduled Castes-Extension to Converts for Scheduled

Castes to Christianity and to Buddhism-Orders Issued.

G.O.Ms.No.341

Order:

Representations have been received by Government from

time to time requesting for the extension of the

concessions granted to Scheduled Castes (Hindus) to

Scheduled Castes Converted to Christianity and

Buddhism on the ground that the scheduled castes

converts also suffer from all the social disabilities as

Scheduled Castes, irrespective of their conversion. At the

state Harijan Conference held in April 1976 also, it was

recommended that mere change of religion should not

become a bar to Scheduled Castes persons from securing

the benefits that they would have been eligible as

Scheduled Castes, before conversion and, therefore, the

Scheduled Castes converts should be given all the benefits

they would have enjoyed before conversion to any other

religion.

2. Government have carefully examined the matter in the

light of the recommendations made by the State Harijan

Conference and other relevant considerations.

Government have decided to extended all the nonCRIMINAL

APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 18 of 33

statutory concessions now available to Scheduled

Castes (Hindus) to Scheduled Caste converts to

Christianity and to Buddhism. Accordingly in

suprecession of the orders issued in this behalf,

Government direct that all non -statutory concessions

granted to Scheduled Castes (Hindus) by the State

Government including economic support schemes

sanctioned by Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes

Cooperative Finance Corporation be extended to

Scheduled Castes converts to Christianity and to

Buddhism.

3. However, the statutory concessions i.e.,

reservations in educational institutions and

reservation in public services for scheduled castes are

applicable only to scheduled castes with reference to

the constitution (Scheduled Castes) order 1950. The

Scheduled Castes converts to Christianity and

Buddhism will not therefore be eligible for these

facilities. The existing orders in this respect will

continue.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF

ANDHRA PRADESH)

S.R.Sankaran. Secretary to Government.”

(emphasis supplied)

46) A careful perusal of the aforesaid State Government Order reveals that

it is of no avail to the appellant. The Government Order itself draws a clear

and categorical distinction between statutory and non-statutory benefits.

Clause 2 of the Government Order states that only “non-statutory

concessions’’ are being extended to Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity

and Buddhism. These non-statutory concessions include economic support

and similar welfare schemes which do not flow from statutory mandate.

47) More significantly, Clause 3 of the State Government Order is

unambiguous and unequivocal. It states that statutory concessions, including

reservations in educational institutions and public services, are applicable

only to Scheduled Castes with reference to the Constitution (Scheduled

Castes) Order, 1950. The clause categorically states that Scheduled Caste

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 19 of 33

converts to Christianity and Buddhism “will not therefore be eligible for these

facilities”. The Government Order thus explicitly recognizes and reaffirms the

position embodied in Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,

1950, which restricts Scheduled Caste status to persons professing Hindu,

Sikh, or Buddhist religion.

48) The SC/ST Act is a statutory enactment of the Parliament of India. The

Act serves as a crucial legal framework to protect the rights and dignity of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in India, ensuring stringent

measures against offences of atrocities and promoting their welfare and

security. The inapplicability of G.O.Ms No. 341 issued by the State to such

central enactments has been authoritatively clarified by the Central

Government itself.

49) In a written reply to the Lok Sabha on 3rd August, 2021, the Minister of

State for Social Justice and Empowerment, Shri A. Narayanaswamy,

addressed this precise issue. The Press Information Bureau issued a press

release9 titled “Benefit of Centrally Sponsored Schemes to Converted

Christians” recording this parliamentary reply, which reads as follows:

“Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment

Benefit of Centrally Sponsored Schemes to Converted

Christians

प्रविवि विवि: 03 AUG 2021 5:25PM by PIB Delhi

No person who professes a religion different from the

Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed

to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. The benefits of

Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) meant for the welfare

and development of Scheduled Castes can not be extended

to Converted Christians from Scheduled Castes.

9 Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, “Benefit of Centrally Sponsored Schemes to

Converted Christians (PIB Press Release, 03rd August, 2021)

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1741930&reg=3&lang=2

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 20 of 33

Government of Andhra Pradesh vide their letter dated

30.07.2021 has informed that they have issued orders

vide GO.Ms. No. 341, Social Welfare Dept., dated

13.08.1977 that non-statutory concessions granted to

the Scheduled Castes (Hindus) by the State Government

be extended to Scheduled Caste converts to Christian and

to Buddhism.

Since this will not apply to the benefits under

Centrally Sponsored Schemes or any other statutory

benefits, no further action is contemplated from the

Ministry. This information was given by The Minister of

State for Social Justice and Empowerment Shri A.

Narayanaswamy in the Loksabha in a written reply today.

******

MG/IA

(रिलीज़ आईडी: 1741930) आगंिुक पटल : 2758”

(emphasis supplied)

50) The aforesaid Press Release by the Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment clarifies that G.O.Ms. No. 341 does not apply to the benefits

under centrally sponsored schemes or any other statutory benefits. Hence,

the reliance placed by the appellant on the Government Order is wholly

misconceived.

51) To further appreciate our discussion on the issue raised, it is necessary

to refer to some of the decisions of this Court which had addressed the same

questions. In C.M. Arumugam (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court had

observed as follows:

“17. ….It is the orthodox Hindu society still dominated to

a large extent, particularly in rural areas, by medievalistic

outlook and status-oriented approach which attaches

social and economic disabilities to a person belonging to a

scheduled caste and that is why certain favoured

treatment is given to him by the Constitution. Once such

a person ceases to be a Hindu and becomes a Christian,

the social and economic disabilities arising because of

Hindu religion cease and hence it is no longer

necessary to give him protection and for this reason

he is deemed not to belong to a scheduled caste….”

(emphasis supplied)

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 21 of 33

52) Thereafter, in Guntur Medical College vs. Y Mohan Rao10, a

Constitution Bench of this Court had discussed in detail the Constitution

(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The observations made by the Court are as

follows:

“The President in exercise of the power conferred upon him

under Article 341 has issued the Constitution (Scheduled

Castes) Order, 1950. Paras (2) and (3) of this Order are

material and they read as follows:

“2. Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes,

races or tribes or parts of or groups within caste or

tribes specified in Part I to XIII of the Schedule to this

Order shall, in relation to the States to which these

parts respectively relate, be deemed to be scheduled

castes so far as regards members thereof resident in

the localities specified in relation to them in those

Parts of that Schedule.

3. Notwithstanding anything contained in para 2, no

person who professes a religion different from the

Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a

member of a Scheduled Caste.”

The schedule to this order in Part I sets out the castes,

races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes or

tribes which shall in the different areas of the State of

Andhra Pradesh be deemed to be scheduled castes. One

of the castes specified there is Madiga caste and that

caste must, therefore, be deemed to be a scheduled

caste. But by reason of clause (3), a person belonging

to Madiga caste would not be deemed to be a member

of a scheduled caste unless he professes Hindu or Sikh

religion at the relevant time. It is not necessary that

he should have been born a Hindu or a Sikh. The only

thing required is that he should at a material time be

professing Hindu or Sikh religion.”

(emphasis supplied)

53) Following the dictum in Y Mohan Rao (supra), a Division Bench of this

Court in M. Chandra vs. M. Thangamuthu and Another11, observed as

follows:

“28. Under these provisions, the Constitution

(Scheduled Castes) Order was issued in 1950. It sets

out the castes, races and tribes in each State of India

10 (1976) 3 SCC 411

11 (2010) 9 SCC 712

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 22 of 33

and provides under Para 2, that a person belonging to

any of the castes specified therein be deemed to be a

Scheduled Caste for the purpose of the Constitution.

Para 3 contains a proviso to the effect that

notwithstanding anything contained in Para 2, no

person who professes a religion different from the

Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be

a member of a Scheduled Caste. Reading Paras 2 and 3

of the Presidential Order would show that if a person

belongs to a caste which is notified in the Schedule to

the Presidential Order he/she would have the status of

a Scheduled Caste, provided he/she professes

Hinduism or one of the other religions specified in Para

3 of the Order.

(emphasis supplied)

54) Before we further deal with this aspect, it would be apposite to refer to

a recent decision of this Court in C. Selvarani vs. The Special Secretarycum-

District Collector and Others12, wherein a Division Bench was

adjudicating the claim of a person seeking reservation benefits, available to

Scheduled Castes, after conversion to Christianity. The relevant portion of the

said decision is as follows:

“38. At this juncture, we may observe that India is a

secular country. Every citizen has a right to practise and

profess a religion of their choice as guaranteed under

Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a different

religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its

principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, if the

purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of

reservation but not with any actual belief on the other

religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of

benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive

will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation.

39. In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly

demonstrates that the appellant professes Christianity

and actively practices the faith by attending church

regularly. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu

and seeks for Scheduled Caste community certificate

for the purpose of employment. Such a dual claim

made by her is untenable and she cannot continue to

identify herself as a Hindu after baptism. Therefore,

the conferment of Scheduled Caste communal status

to the appellant, who is a Christian by religion, but

claims to be still embracing Hinduism only for the

purpose of availing reservation in employment, would

12 2024 INSC 900

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 23 of 33

go against the very object of reservation and would

amount to fraud on the Constitution.”

(emphasis supplied)

POSTULATES

55) Upon a cumulative reading of the aforesaid discussion and in the light

of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and Constitution

(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, the following principles emerge for

determining the entitlement of a person to be recognised as a member of a

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe:

a) The claimant must demonstrably belong to a caste or tribe which is

specifically notified and recognised under Clause 2 of the Constitution

(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)

Order, 1950, and such status must be established by clear, cogent, and

unimpeachable evidence.

b) No person who professes a religion other than Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist

shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. This bar under

Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is

categorical and absolute. Conversion to any religion not specified in

Clause 3 results in immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste

status from the moment of conversion regardless of birth.

c) No statutory benefit, protection, reservation, or entitlement under the

Constitution or under any enactment of Parliament or State Legislature

that is predicated upon the membership of a Scheduled Caste can be

claimed by or extended to any person who, by operation of Clause 3 of

the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, is not deemed to be a

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 24 of 33

member of a Scheduled Caste. This bar is absolute and admits no

exception.

d) A person cannot simultaneously profess and practice a religion other

than the ones specified in Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes)

Order, 1950 and claim membership of a Scheduled Caste at the same

time. A person who professes and practices such religion for personal,

social and spiritual purposes cannot in law, assert membership of a

Scheduled Caste for the purpose of securing statutory benefits. The two

positions are mutually exclusive and contrary to the Constitutional

scheme.

e) In cases where a person claims to have reconverted from a religion not

specified in Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,

1950 back to Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religion, the following three

conditions must be cumulatively and conclusively established:

i. There must be a clear proof that the person originally belonged

to a caste notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)

Order, 1950.

ii. There must be credible and unimpeachable evidence of bona fide

reconversion to the original religion, accompanied by complete

and unequivocal renunciation of the religion to which conversion

had taken place, total dissociation therefrom, and actual

adoption and observance of the customs, usages, practices,

rituals, and religious obligations of the original caste.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 25 of 33

iii. There must be satisfactory and credible evidence establishing

acceptance and assimilation by the members of the original caste

and the concerned community. Mere self-proclamation is

insufficient i.e., the community must recognize and accept the

person as one of their own.

All the above three conditions are mandatory and cumulative.

The burden of proving reconversion lies entirely on the claimant,

to be proven through unimpeachable evidence. Failure to

establish even one condition renders the claim unsustainable.

f) Where a person ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Caste by virtue

of Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the loss

of such status carries with it the automatic and immediate termination

of all eligibility for statutory benefits, protections, reservations,

preferences and entitlements that are predicated upon or flow from

such membership.

g) With respect to Scheduled Tribes, this Court clarifies that unlike the

Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the Constitution

(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 does not prescribe religion-based

exclusion. The determination of Scheduled Tribe status, therefore,

cannot rest on conversion alone, but must turn on whether the

claimant continues to possess and is recognised for the essential

attributes of tribal identity, including customary practices, social

organisation, community life, and acceptance by the concerned tribal

community. Where conversion or subsequent conduct results in a

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 26 of 33

complete severance from the tribal way of life and loss of community

recognition, the foundational basis for Scheduled Tribes status will

stand eroded. Conversely, where such attributes demonstrably subsist

or are genuinely re-established and accepted by the tribal community,

the claim cannot be rejected mechanically. The assessment in such

cases is necessarily fact-specific and is left to the competent authority

to decide in accordance with Constitutional principles.

56) Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the

appellant was originally born into the Madiga community of Scheduled Caste.

It is equally undisputed that he subsequently embraced Christianity. The

submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that he continues to retain

his Scheduled Caste status by birth notwithstanding such conversion cannot

be accepted. When the postulates enunciated hereinabove are applied to the

facts at hand, it becomes manifest that for a person to be recognised as a

member of a Scheduled Caste, he must be professing the Hindu religion or

such other religions as are expressly recognised under the Constitution

(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Once the appellant converted to Christianity,

the caste status, which he earlier enjoyed as a member of the Madiga

community, stood eclipsed in the eyes of law.

57) In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant that at any stage,

he had reconverted from Christianity to his original religion or has been

accepted back into the fold of the Madiga community. On the contrary, the

evidence on record unmistakably establishes that the appellant continues to

profess Christianity and has been functioning as a Pastor for more than a

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 27 of 33

decade, conducting regular Sunday prayer meetings in different houses of the

village. It is also an admitted position that at the time of the alleged incident,

the appellant was conducting prayer meeting as a Pastor at the house of one

Doma Koti Reddy. These concurrent facts leave no room for doubt that the

appellant continues to remain a Christian on the date of the occurrence.

58) As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant placing

reliance on the caste certificate is concerned, we are of the view that mere

possession of the certificate will not be of any benefit to the appellant. The

said caste certificate is mandatorily required to be in consonance with the

Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In this regard, we place reliance

on the decision of this Court in K.P. Manu vs. Scrutiny Committee for

Verification of Community Certificate13, wherein a Division Bench had laid

out three mandatory tests to be established by a person who claims to be a

beneficiary of a caste certificate:

“38. In our considered opinion, three things that need to

be established by a person who claims to be a

beneficiary of the caste certificate are : (i) there must

be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the

caste that has been recognised by the Constitution

(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; (ii) there has been

reconversion to the original religion to which the

parents and earlier generations had belonged; and (iii)

there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance

by the community. Each aspect according to us is very

significant, and if one is not substantiated, the

recognition would not be possible.”

(emphasis supplied)

59) From the above, it is clear that the administrative action of the State in

providing the caste certificate to the appellant cannot be in disharmony with

the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In the present case, we

13 (2015) 4 SCC 1

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 28 of 33

have no hesitation in holding that the appellant, having ceased to be a

member of the Madiga community upon his conversion to Christianity and

having failed to establish any subsequent reconversion, does not satisfy the

mandatory Constitutional requirement for claiming the status of Scheduled

Caste.

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN QUASHING PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 7?

A. Offences alleged under the SC/ST Act

60) At the very outset, it must be unequivocally stated that the offences

registered under the SC/ST Act against respondent nos. 2 to 7 at the instance

of the appellant cannot be sustained. Having already held that the appellant

ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his

conversion to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke the provisions of

the SC/ST Act. The said statute is a special legislation enacted with the

avowed object of preventing atrocities against the members of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes and once the foundational requirement of caste

status stands extinguished, the statutory protection thereunder is no longer

available.

61) Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding

that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste on his

conversion to Christianity. Accordingly, the appellant cannot be a person

aggrieved under the SC/ST Act.

B. Offences alleged under the IPC

62) Before we discuss on the alleged offences under Sections 341, 506 and

323 read with Section 34 of the IPC against respondent nos. 2 to 7, it is

apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan

Lal14, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had deliberated on the list of

cases, wherein power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC should be exercised by

the High Court for quashing proceedings:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and

of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a

series of decisions relating to the exercise of the

extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent

powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have

extracted and reproduced above, we have given the

following categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent

abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure

the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay

down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently

channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae

and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they are

taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or

make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report

and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do

not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an

investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of

the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within

the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in

support of the same do not disclose the commission

of any offence and make out a case against the

accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable

on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused.

14 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 30 of 33

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any

of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under

which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or

where there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the

grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is

maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to

spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

(emphasis supplied)

63) In light of the aforesaid legal parameters, we now proceed to examine

the allegations levelled against respondent nos. 2 to 7 in relation to the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34

of the IPC, as alleged to have been committed against the appellant.

64) The case of the appellant, as emerging from the complaint, is that on

the date of the incident, after offering Sunday prayers and while returning to

his residence, he was allegedly wrongfully restrained at the entrance of a

nearby hamlet by respondent nos. 2 to 7, along with approximately twentyfive

other persons. It is further alleged that his mobile phone and vehicle keys

were forcibly taken away, that he was dragged and assaulted with hands and

legs, and that threats to his life were extended.

65) The charge-sheet filed in the matter cites sixteen witnesses, including

the appellant himself. Upon consideration of the material placed on record,

the High Court, by the impugned judgment, proceeded to quash the criminal

proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant against respondent nos. 2 to 7. In this context, we consider it appropriate to extract the relevant

reasoning of the High Court pertaining to the offences alleged under the IPC:

“38. In so far as the allegations of commission of offences

under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with 34 of IPC is

concerned except for the statement of LW.1 there is no

other corroborating statement of any of the witnesses. On

the contrary LW.2 the wife of LW.1 would state that she

came to know about the alleged altercation and that by the

time she went there LW.1 had already started in a car with

one Pothurlanka Srinivasa Rao-LW.4 in the car belonging

to LW.3 – Addepalii Anii Kumar. She also stated that Anil

Kumar and Pothurlanka Srinivasa Rao had dropped LW.1

at her house. Both LWs.3 and 4 state that there was an

altercation and that about 30 people were questioning

LW.1 about his activities in the village and that LWs.3 and

4 intervened and pacified the situation and thereafter

dropped LW.1. LWs.3 and 4 state that about 30 people

have assembled and questioned LW.1; however, LW.5 to

LW.9 do not state so in their statement.

*****

41. Similarly, except for the listed witness Nos.1 and 3 no

other witness speak about the altercation involving 30

people. Even the charge sheet does not state that 30 people

had participated in the altercation. The only person

accompanying LW.1 at the time of the alleged altercation

was LW.9, she does not state about the alleged presence of

the 30 people. All that she says in her statement recorded

on 27.01.2021 i.e., one day after the date of filing of

complaint. LW.9 stated that, she was the pillion rider of

the two wheeler which was driven by LW.1, when LW.1 and

LW.9 reached cross roads of Kothapalem Village some

people came and stopped the two wheeler stating that they

wanted to talk with the Pastor and that LW.9 was dropped

off at her house on another bike. It is also stated by LW.9

she after reaching her home, she overheard people

shouting. Later she came to know that Reddy’s of

Kothapalem village have threatened LW.1 not to perform

Sunday Prayers in the village. With these allegations, the

requirements under Sections 341, 506, 323 read with 34

of IPC cannot be made out even after full fledged trial. This

Court is of the considered view that a false complaint is

filed and no purpose would be served if the petitioners are

relegated to the trial Court and to undergo the rigmarole

of trial.”

66) The allegations of wrongful restraint, hurt and criminal intimidation

rest solely on the statement of the appellant, with no independent witness

attributing any specific overt act to respondent nos. 2 to 7. LW-2 was

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9231/2025 Page 32 of 33

admittedly not present at the scene, while LW-3 and LW-4, though referring

to an altercation, stated that the situation was pacified and the appellant was

escorted away. Their version does not support any allegation of restraint,

assault or threat. The claim regarding the presence of a large unlawful

assembly is unsupported by the chargesheet or other witnesses, thereby

weakening the case of a concerted act under Section 34 of the IPC. LW-9, who

accompanied the appellant, also does not allege any assault, restraint or

intimidation; her subsequent statements are hearsay in nature. Moreover,

absence of consistent ocular testimony identifying the assailants or manner

of occurrence, does not advance the prosecution’s case.

67) Thus, we are of the view that the basic foundation in respect of

allegations of wrongful restraint, causing hurt and criminal intimidation are

not present in the material collected during investigation.

68) In Bhajan Lal (supra) and recently in Neeharika Infrastructure

Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra15, this Court has clearly held

that where the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected during

investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence, continuation of

criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

69) We are of the view that the High Court, upon a careful and correct

appreciation of the material on record, arrived at the conclusion that the

allegations under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC

are not borne out even if the prosecution’s case is taken at its face value.

15 (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Para 33)

70) In view of the above analysis, we find no substance in the Appeal which

fails and is hereby dismissed.

………………………………………..J.

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

.……………………………………….J.

(MANMOHAN)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 24, 2026.