### SC/ST Act Charges Unsustainable Absent Specific Allegations of Caste-Based Intent and Knowledge of Victim’s Identity

The appellant sought to quash an order dated 21.05.2022 by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Motihari, which rejected his discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

The case originated from an FIR lodged by a Circle Officer (Informant) alleging that on 18.11.2018, while he was regulating traffic for a VVIP visit, the appellant and his son obstructed him, used abusive language, and attempted to assault him.

Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341, 323, 353, and 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant contended that the driver of the informant and other witnesses did not support the allegations and that the FIR lacked specific mentions of caste-based insults.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material on record prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the charges framed under Sections 341, 323, 353, and 504/34 of the IPC at the stage of discharge.

The court primarily applied Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the discharge of an accused.

It relied on the principles from *Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand*, which established that for an offence under the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must be based on the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

It further cited *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, outlining the categories where inherent powers can be used to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

*Sajjan Kumar v. CBI*, which holds that "grave suspicion" is sufficient to frame a charge, and meticulous examination of evidence is not required at the framing stage.

The Court observed that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet contained any "whisper of allegation" that the appellant insulted or intimidated the informant specifically because of his caste.

There was no evidence to suggest the appellant even knew the informant belonged to the SC/ST community; the dispute appeared to be a general altercation regarding traffic regulation.

Consequently, applying the *Hitesh Verma* precedent, the statutory requirements for the SC/ST Act were not met.

However, regarding the IPC offences (Sections 341, 323, 353, and 504), the Court found that the appellant’s arguments were purely factual and disputed in nature.

Under the standard set in *Sajjan Kumar* and *Gyan Devi*, such factual disputes cannot be resolved at the discharge stage and must be tested during the trial.

It quashed the order and the charge-sheet to the extent of offences under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

However, it declined to interfere with the cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 353, and 504/34 of the IPC.

The Special Court was directed to transfer the records to a Regular Court for trial regarding the remaining IPC offences.