The Allahabad High Court has held that merely referring to a person by their profession does not attract the SC/ST Act unless the remark is made with deliberate intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes community.
Justice Anil Kumar-X delivered the ruling while partly allowing a criminal appeal against an August 2024 summoning order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar.
Background
The trial court had summoned the appellant for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act.
The complainant, who washed clothes for the appellant, alleged that he harassed and abused her on the road when she demanded payment of wages. She claimed he used caste-based remarks, including the word “धोबिन”.
The High Court noted that the dispute arose from a wage demand. It also recorded that the parties were in a contractual arrangement for washing clothes. The Court held that referring to someone by their profession does not automatically amount to a caste insult. The prosecution must show clear intent to humiliate the victim on the basis of caste.
Protest Petition Issue
The appellant also argued that the trial court wrongly converted the protest petition into a complaint without expressly rejecting the police final report.
The High Court rejected this contention. It held that when a court treats a protest petition as a complaint, it implicitly declines to accept the final report filed under Section 173(2) CrPC. An explicit recital is not mandatory.
Order
The Court quashed the summoning order insofar as it related to offences under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act.
However, proceedings under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC will continue in accordance with law.
Case Title: Harshit @ Honey v. State of U.P. and Another
State of U.P.
