Dr. Ravi Kant Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1936 of 2026
Dr. Ravi Kant Sharma And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mahendra Kumar Rawat, Dr. Sunil
Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Arunendra Nath Mishra
[AFR]

Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1 Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Rawat, the learned counsel for the appellants,
.
Sri G.D. Bhatt, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Sri Arunendra Nath
Mishra, Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party
no.2, which is taken on record.
2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 14-A (1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') the appellants have
challenged the validity of an order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Sessions Case No. 1416 of 2024
in Case Crime No. 368 of 2024 under Sections 121, 115(2), 352, 351(3),
132, 221 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (which will hereinafter be referred to as
'BNS') & Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act, allowing an application
filed by the Opposite Party no. 2 under Section 250 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'BNSS') seeking
his discharge.
3 . The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. No.368 of 2024,
lodged by the appellant no.1 Dr. Ravi Kant Sharma, in Police Station
Bilgram, Hardoi on 22.07.2024 under Sections 121, 115(2), 352, 351(3),
132, 221 against the Opposite Party No. 2 stating that when the complainant,
who was working as a Medical Officer in Community Health Center,
Bilgram, Hardoi, was roaming around in the CHC campus at about 09:30
p.m., he heard some altercation in emergency ward. Upon reaching there, he
found that the appellant no. 2 Dr. Liyaqat Ali, was treating the patients. A
middle-aged man, claiming himself to be a retired army personnel (the

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
2
opposite party no. 2), was quarreling with the appellant no. 2. Pharmacist
Satyendra, ward boy Manish Pal and sweeper Akash were also present there.
The young man (whom the complainant has earlier referred to as a middle-
aged man) ran to assault the appellant no. 2. The appellant no.1/complainant
intervened whereupon the opposite party no.2 hurled casteist abuses,
threatened him and thereafter started beating him with fists and kicks,
causing two-three scratch marks on his face and some internal injuries.
Somehow the appellant no. 2 and the other persons performing the night
duty saved him. Strangely, the complainant stated in the F.I.R. that after

beating him, the young man (previously referred to as the middle-aged man),
himself disclosed his name as Umesh Chand Trivedi (the opposite party no.
2).
4. In the statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the appellant no.1 Dr.
Ravi Kant Sharma disclosed that he belongs to Chamar caste and he
reiterated the F.I.R. version. He stated that while assaulting, the opposite
party no. 2 had addressed him as ' sale chamatte '. Dr. Sharma also stated that
besides telling his name as Umesh Chand Dwivedi, the opposite party no. 2
had also told that he was a resident of village Bargawan.
5 . The other employees of the CHC gave statements supporting the version
given by the complainant Dr. Sharma. They stated that the opposite party no.
2 had come to the CHC in an inebriated condition. He asked to administer a
vaccine of tetanus. The persons present asked him to come in the morning
whereupon the opposite party no.2 started quarreling.
6 The medico-legal examination of the complainant/appellant no.1 was
.
conducted by the appellant no.2 CHC Bilgram and the injury report
mentions an abrasion of 2 cm x 0.8 cm present on the right side of face, an
abrasion of 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm present at the left eyebrow, swelling and pain in
the upper region of the face below the left eye, complaint of pain and
swelling 6 cm x 4 cm on the left side of chest and complaint of pain in the
whole body.
7 After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet
.
dated 08.08.2024 against the opposite party no. 2 for the offences under
Sections 121, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132, 221 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
and 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r),(s) SC/ST Act. The trial court took cognizance of the
offences on 09.12.2024 and summoned the opposite party no.2 to face the
trial.
8 . The opposite party no.2 filed an application seeking his discharge, stating
that on 22.07.2024 he had suffered an injury in his thumb. He had gone to
the CHC for getting a Tetanus vaccine administered. The appellant no.2 and

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
3
the other staff members were present on duty in an inebriated condition and
in spite of repeated requests, they did not administer the injection and they
implicated him falsely. The opposite party no.2 stated that he did not know
the staff members personally and he did not know the caste of any person
and there was no occasion for him to hurl any casteist abuse. The opposite
party no.2 further stated that even as per the allegations, the entire staff of
CHC was present on the spot whereas the opposite party no. 2 was alone
there and, therefore, the incident is inherently improbable. The opposite
party no.2 stated that he is a disciplined person and has retired from the post
of Junior Warrant Officer after serving the Indian Air Force for 26 years, he
has no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated.
9 The appellants did not file any objection against the said application.
.
10. The trial court has allowed the discharge application by the impugned
order dated 09.06.2026, holding that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. do
not disclose that the opposite party no. 2 knew the appellant no.1 or his caste
since before and in these circumstances, the provisions of SC/ST Act are not
attracted. The altercation is said to have started between the accused and the
appellant no. 2 Dr. Liyaqat Ali. Dr. Liyaqat Ali, who is said to be the victim
of the incident, has himself conducted the medico-legal examination of the
complainant/ appellant no.1, which is in violation of the principles of natural
justice and the medico-legal examination report is vitiated for this reason.
11. The trial court further noted that the F.I.R. or the statements recorded
during investigation do not disclose the cause of altercation, whereas the
accused has stated that he had gone to the CHC to get a Tetvac injection
administered, the appellant no. 2 Dr. Liyaqat Ali and other staff members
were present on duty in an inebriated condition and in spite of repetitive
requests, they did not administer the injection to the accused. Non-disclosure
of motive of the incident in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the
complainant and other persons present in CHC indicates that the version of
the complainant is not believable as no person would enter a CHC and
misbehave with a public servant/medical officer without any reason.
12. The SC/ST Act was enacted to remove the disparity of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes who remain vulnerable and are denied their
civil rights. The Preamble to the SC/ ST Act states as under: -
" An Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against
the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to
provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the
relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
13. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1989 Act, for which it had

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
4
been enacted is as under: -
" Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic
conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they
remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They
are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations, and
harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived
of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against
them for various historical, social, and economic reasons.
2. … When they assert their rights and resist practices of
untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages
or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests
try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect
or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant
and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the government
allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is
resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by
the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the
disturbing trend of the commission of certain atrocities like making
the Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible substances, like human
excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the
circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have
been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special
legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by
non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore,
become necessary."
14. In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra : (2018) 6
SCC 454, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the question whether
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates an absolute bar to the grant of
anticipatory bail. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is as follows: -
" 18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an
offence under the Act.—Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall
apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on
an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its concern about the rampant misuse
of the provisions of the SC / ST Act by observing that: -
" 63. We have already noted the working of the Act in the last
three decades. It has been judicially acknowledged that there are
against political
instances of abuse of the Act by vested interests
opponents in panchayat, municipal or other elections, to settle
private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary disputes,
employment disputes and seniority disputes. [Dhiren Prafulbhai
Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 2076] It may be
noticed that by way of rampant misuse complaints are "largely
being filed particularly against public servants/quasi-
judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
5
". [Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 Bom
vested interests
CR (Cri) 545]
64. Innocent citizens are termed as accused, which is not
intended by the legislature. The legislature never intended to use
the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak
. ...
personal vengeance
15. In view of the rampant abuse of the provisions of the SC / ST Act by
filing false cases to wreak vengeance upon the opponents, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -
" 65. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that exclusion
of provision for anticipatory bail will not apply when no prima
facie case is made out or the case is patently false or mala fide.
This may have to be determined by the Court concerned in facts
and circumstances of each case in exercise of its judicial
discretion. In doing so, we are reiterating a well-established
principle of law that protection of innocent against abuse of law
is part of inherent jurisdiction of the court being part of access to
justice and protection of liberty against any oppressive action
such as mala fide arrest. In doing so, we are not diluting the
efficacy of Section 18 in deserving cases where court finds a case
to be prima facie genuine warranting custodial interrogation and
pre-trial arrest and detention.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had drawn the following conclusions in
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (supra): -
" Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process
79.1.
of court and are quashed.
79.2. There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in
cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or
where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie
mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat
High Court in Pankaj D. Suthar [Pankaj D. Suthar v. State of
Gujarat, (1992) 1 Guj LR 405] and N.T. Desai [N.T. Desai v. State
of Gujarat, (1997) 2 Guj LR 942] and clarify the judgments of this
Court in Balothia [State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3
SCC 221] and Manju Devi [Manju Devi v. Onkarjit Singh
Ahluwalia, (2017) 13 SCC 439];
79.3. In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under
the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after
approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant
after approval by the SSP which may be granted in appropriate
cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons
must be scrutinised by the Magistrate for permitting further
detention.
To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary
79.4.
enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out
whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act
and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
6
Any violation of Directions 79.3 and 79.4 will be actionable
79.5.
by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt.
79.6. The above directions are prospective."
17. The Union of India sought a review of the aforesaid judgment in the case
of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) on the ground that when the Court
does not accept the legislative and specific provisions of law passed by the
legislature and only the legislature has the power to amend those provisions
if the Court finds provisions are not acceptable to it, it has to strike them
down being violative of fundamental rights or in case of deficiency to point
out to the legislature to correct the same. The review application was partly
allowed by the judgment in Union of India v. State of Maharashtra ,
(2018) 6 SCC 450, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: -
" 52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a
class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or
the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it cannot
be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the
human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not
attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness
hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report,
much less, a false one. In case it is found to be
false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or
for other various reasons including human failings irrespective of
caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that
can be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot
be changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be
.
taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC
56. To treat such incumbents with a rider that a report lodged by
an SCs/STs category person, would be registered only after a
preliminary investigation by DSP, whereas under CrPC a
complaint lodged relating to cognizable offence has to be
registered forthwith. It would mean a report by upper caste has to
be registered immediately and arrest can be made forthwith,
whereas, in case of an offence under the 1989 Act, it would be
conditioned one. It would be opposed to the protective
discrimination meted out to the members of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes as envisaged under the Constitution in
Articles 15, 17 and 21 and would tantamount to treating them as
unequal, somewhat supportive action as per the mandate of the
Constitution is required to make them equals. It does not prima
facie appear permissible to look them down in any manner. It
would also be contrary to the procedure prescribed under CrPC
and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Lalita
Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1].
*
We do not doubt that directions encroach upon the field
70.
reserved for the legislature and against the concept of protective

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
7
discrimination in favour of downtrodden classes under Article
15(4) of the Constitution and also impermissible within the
parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, we are of the
considered opinion that Directions 79.3 and 79.4 issued by this
Court deserve to be and are hereby recalled and consequently we
hold that Direction 79.5, also vanishes. The review petitions are
allowed to the extent mentioned above."
18. Thus even after reviewing the judgment, although the Hon'ble Supreme
Court set aside certain other directions, it affirmed the law laid down in
(supra), that there is no absolute bar against
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan
grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the SC/ST Act if no prima facie case
is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima
facie mala fide, as there may be certain cases which may be false and in such
a situation, they can be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.
Therefore, the trial Courts also can discharge the accused in cases of an
apparently false implication.
19. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India : (2020) 4 SCC 727, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that: -
" 12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of
provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while
deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no
argument to the contrary has been raised."
20. The complainant in the present case is Dr. Ravi Kant Sharma, a Doctor
in Government Service. He has lodged the First Information Report against a
retired Junior Warrant Officer who has served the Indian Air Force for 26
years, alleging that the accused was quarreling with another Doctor working
in the CHC in presence of the Pharmacist, the ward boy and the sweeper and
then the accused suddenly ran to assault the Doctor. When the appellant
no.1/complainant intervened, the accused hurled casteist abuses and beat
him with fists and kicks, causing two-three scratch marks on his face and
some internal injuries.
21. The appellant no. 1 writes his surname as 'Sharma', which is normally
used by persons belonging to Brahmin upper caste or Badhai (carpenter) or
Nai (barber) backward castes. The trial Court has rightly observed that it is
an exceptional situation where a person of a Scheduled Caste is using the
surname 'Sharma'. There is no allegation that the opposite party no. 2 knew
the complainant or his caste since before and, therefore, it cannot be said that
the accused intended to humiliate the complainant because of his caste.
22. In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand: (2020) 10 SCC 710, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the offence under the Act is not established

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
8
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless
there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.
23. In : (2000)
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra
3 SCC 557, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
" 9. ... To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine
qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under
the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that
such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v)
of the Act arises..."
24. When there is absolutely no material to show that the accused knew that
Dr. Ravi Kant Sharma belongs to a Scheduled Caste, it cannot be said that he
committed any offence because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled
Caste. In this condition, the offences under the SC / ST Act are not made
out.
25. The trial court rightly held that even as per the F.I.R. version, the
altercation started between the opposite party no. 2 and the appellant no. 2
Dr. Liyaqat Ali. Dr. Liyaqat Ali, who is said to be the victim of the incident,
has himself conducted the medico-legal examination of the complainant/
appellant no.1, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In
case no other doctor was available in the CHC, the appellant no. 1 ought to
have got his medico-legal examination conducted in any other Hospital. The
medico-legal examination report is vitiated and cannot be believed for
making the opposite party no. 2 face the trial.
26. The trial court further noted that the F.I.R. or the statements recorded
during investigation do not disclose the cause of altercation. However, the
accused - opposite party no. 2 has stated that he had suffered an injury in his
thumb, he had gone to the CHC to get a Tetvac injection administered, the
appellant no. 2 Dr. Liyaqat Ali and other staff members were present on duty
in an inebriated condition and in spite of repetitive requests, they did not
administer the injection to the opposite party no. 2. This indicates that the
version of the complainant/opposite party no.1 is not believable as no person
would enter a CHC and misbehave with a public servant/medical officer
without any reason, whereas the version of the accused – opposite party no.
1 appears to be natural and it inspires confidence.
27. The investigating officer has recorded in the case diary that the other
doctors of the CHC and the Doctors' Unions were agitated because of the
incident and there was a possibility of protest by them and apprehension of

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
9
breach of peace, which shows that the investigating officer has conducted
the investigation under influence of the apprehended breach of peace by the
Doctors' unions.
28. In : 2026 SCC OnLine SC
Ishwar Chand Sharma v. State of U.P.
1004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its concern against the
rising trend in vexatious litigation, particularly in the context of matrimonial
disputes, but the observations would apply to abuse of criminal justice
system in general also. The relevant passage of the judgment is being
reproduced below: -
" 9.6 While we are conscious of the fact that there are instances and
a plethora of cases that are true and deserve the utmost attention
and deft handling on the side of authorities and Courts and which
should be pursued vigorously to reach a logical conclusion, on the
other side of the spectrum, are cases invoking such serious and
heinous allegations which are prima facie vague, omnibus and
general in nature and thereby lacking any material backing or
evidence which should be shunned at the very threshold. We say so
for the reason that if a person is made an accused and forced to
face a criminal trial on general and sweeping allegations without
bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it
would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and court.
Hence, legal practitioners who tender advice in such cases must
restrain parties from filing such false/frivolous complaints when
requested to do so. Further, lawyers/advocates must also not advise
filing of criminal complaints which are false/concocted so as to
keep the opposite parties under a tight leash so that they could
come forward for a settlement on the terms dictated by their parties
or else, to face a criminal prosecution which can prolong for years.
When such is the trend, on the other side, efforts are made to seek
anticipatory bail by persons apprehending arrest owing to a
false/frivolous complaint being lodged which sometimes reach the
portals of this Court after being unsuccessful at the level of the trial
court and High Court. Also, steps are taken for seeking quashing of
such false/frivolous complaints before the High Court which has its
own saga of uncertainties causing undue pressure, harassment,
stress and tension on the so-called accused. The consequence of
all this is docket explosion and burden on Courts resulting in
genuine complaints and cases not being given due time and
attention that they need .
9.7 Courts then owe a duty to subject the allegations levelled in
the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to ascertain if a prima
facie case is made out or not, and whether there is any kernel of
truth in the allegations or whether the said allegations have been
made only with the sole intent of spite so as to harass the opposite
party with a prolonged process of criminal litigation, arrest and
sometimes a conviction which later on may result in an acquittal
by a higher Court or in a worse case, no relief at all being given
. This stands more true when prosecution
to an innocent party
arises from a matrimonial dispute."

CRLA No. 1936 of 2026
10
29. It is true that there is a need of the special laws to protect the interests of
vulnerable sections of the society and those laws are serving the purpose
with which the same have been enacted. However, the Court is experiencing
day in and day out rampant abuse of the criminal justice system for settling
the civil, matrimonial, commercial or other disputes or to simply wreak
vengeance on the opponents and in this process, the provisions of some
special laws enacted to protect the interests of vulnerable sections of the
societies, including the SC/ST Act, are also abused by a few unscrupulous
persons acting with mala fide intentions.
30. I find myself in complete agreement with the reasons recorded in the
impugned order passed by the trial Court for discharging the accused –
opposite party no. 2. The trial court has not committed any error or illegality
in passing the impugned order discharging the opposite party no. 2 in the
case which was instituted by the appellant no. 2 Government Doctor as a
gross abuse of the law which is meant to protect the interests of persons
belonging to a downtrodden and vulnerable section of the society. It prima
facie shows commission of an offence under Section 182 IPC/217 BNS by
the complainant himself.
31. The criminal appeal lack merit and the same is dismissed.
38. A copy of this order be communicated to the Director General Medical
Health as well as to the Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Health, State of
UP.
July 28, 2026
Arti/-
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Whether the order is speaking - Yes
Whether the order is reportable - Yes
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench