Vikas Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act). The appellant has challenged the order dated 15/12/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sheopur, M.P. in Special Case No. 83/2025. By the said order, the learned Special Judge has rejected the application for discharge filed by the appellant under section 250 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 227 of Cr.P.C.), wherein the appellant and the co-accused Shivendra Sharma, was charged for offences under Section 318(4) or 318(4)/3(5), 336(3) or 336(3)/3(5), 338 or 338/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant seeks to quash the said impugned order and prays for total discharge from all the criminal charges framed against him.

The prosecution case is that the complainant/Respondent No. 2, Lalu Singh Bhilala, has filed a complaint alleging that co-accused Shivendra Sharma, in cooperation with the appellant Vikas Sharma, lured him with the promise that they would help him in securing government employment in the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Bhopal. In furtherance of said inducement, they handed over a forged and fabricated appointment letter No. 9039/2024 dated 05/08/2024 to the complainant/respondent No.2. The complainant alleged that he was deceived into paying a sum of Rs.1,50,500/- through online and offline modes on various dates between 01/07/2024 and 15/08/2024.

Based on these allegations, an FIR bearing Crime No. 25/2025 was registered at Police Station Bargawan, District Sheopur initially under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. During the investigation, certain charges were added, including Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338 of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was then filed before the Learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Sheopur, and the same was registered as Special Case No. 83/2025.

Before the trial Court, the appellant moved an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C/Section 250 of BNSS, where he prayed for discharge. The learned trial court perused the case diary and all the materials collected during the investigation and upon such perusal, the Court held that a prima facie case was made out and that there exists sufficient grounds for the Court to presume that the appellant had committed the alleged offences. Consequently, the discharge application was rejected and charges were framed under Sections 318(4) or 318(4)/3(5), 336(3) or 336(3)/3(5), 338 or 338/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. After the charges being read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and further requested a trial. Being aggrieved by the said observation and order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned senior counsel for appellant submits that the entire issue arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Gwalior; therefore, Police Station Bargawan, District Sheopur, lacked the territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIR as the offence was alleged to be committed at Gwalior. Consequently, the Special Court, Sheopur, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter.

It is further submitted that appellant is a practicing advocate residing in Gwalior who had never met the complainant or sought any money for securing a job. Witness Vishnu Jatav is a close associate of the complainant and was a tenant in the appellant's house in Gwalior from last four years. Having defaulted on several rent payments, Vishnu Jatav conspired with the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant upon being asked for the pending rent. It is also submitted that the complainant has not provided any evidence of dishonest inducement or any concerned receipt of payment. There is absolutely no bank record, digital receipt, or physical acknowledgment indicating that a single rupee was deposited into or received by the appellant. There is absolutely no mention of any demand which was made or any payment in furtherance to that given to the appellant in the statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS/Section 164 Cr.P.C before the JMFC, Sheopur. Therefore, the offences under Sections 318(4) or 318(4)/3(5), 336(3) or 336(3)/3(5), 338 or 338/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 are not made out

It is further contended that neither the FIR nor the statements under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 180 & 183 of BNSS) that recorded by the complainant and witness Vishnu Jatav mentioned any detail indicating that the appellant knew, or had any reason to believe that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The framing of charges under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was done without any averment that the appellant was aware of the complainant's identity or caste. The knowledge of caste is a jurisdictional and fundamental fact required to attract the provisions of the Act. There is no explicit allegation that the alleged crime which was done, was committed on the ground that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe Community. No caste-based insults, public humiliation, or references to surnames were ever made whatsover. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is also not made out.

Per contra, learned counsel for State as well as complainant supported the impugned order and opposed the appeal. It was argued that the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists at the stage of framing charge. The learned counsels submitted that the charge-sheet discloses the suspicion which is sufficient to warrant a trial. Whereas, the question of territorial jurisdiction and that of the question of knowledge of caste are both matters which requires appreciation of evidence. It was further stated that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is neither required nor entitled or needed to weigh the evidence as a trial or to hold a mini-trial.

Heard the counsel for parties and perused the case diary.

Before addressing the conflicting arguments, it is important to remember that at the charge framing stage or in an appeal/revision, there is a narrow scope within which the court can examine the matter. The court is not to make a roving enquiry into the merits of the case, nor is it for the court to weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial. The court is however expected to only sift the evidence for the purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused.

At the stage of framing of charge, while the court is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence, even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame a charge but at the same time, the court should also take into consideration that whether allowing proceedings to continue without a prima facie disclosure of the statutory ingredients amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Anand Rai v. State of M.P. & Another reported in 2026 Cri LJ 1460 (SC) has explained the scope of Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act and held that an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act is a statutory first appeal on both facts and law. The High Court does not function merely as a revisional or supervisory Court but as a First Appellate Court which is obliged to independently evaluate the material on record. A mechanical affirmation of a trial court's order without independent scrutiny is inconsistent with settled appellate jurisprudence.

In the present case, the first contention as raised by the learned Senior Counsel for appellant is that the whole transaction has occurred within District Gwalior and that Police Station Bargawan, District Sheopur, had no territorial jurisdiction to register the FIR or investigate the case and the Special Court, Sheopur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. This Court is unable to accept the said submission at its face value. The materials placed on record, including the complainant's own statements and the case diary, clearly indicate that the transaction for the alleged payment of Rs.1,50,500/- was made partly online and partly offline and was subjected to a place within District Sheopur. The complainant himself is a resident of Village Madanpur, Tehsil Karahal, District Sheopur. As mentioned under Section 178/179 (corresponding to Section 197/198 of BNSS), an offence could be tried by a Court within whose local limits any part of the consequences arises.

Hence, even if some part of the transaction, such as negotiations or handing over of the forged letter has occurred in the District Gwalior, that circumstance alone would not completely eliminate the jurisdiction of the Sheopur Court. The facts that the payment, which is the very foundation of the said allegation, appears to take place within that district. The question about the location of the entire chain of events or part of is a matter that requires evidence and that cannot be settled on affidavit-like assertions as mentioned in the charge stage. Therefore, this ground of jurisdiction does not warrant discharge and is hereby rejected, without causing prejudice to the liberty to the appellant to re-agitate it, if advice here so.

The second part of the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the charges relating to Sections 318(4) or 318(4)/3(5), 336(3) or 336(3)/3(5), 338 or 338/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 deserve to be quashed since no cogent proof of payment has been placed on record. This cannot be accepted at this particular stage. The issue whether a person acted with fraudulent or dishonest intention is a process that needs to be deduced from the intention of the parties. The intention must be judged from their conduct at or before the time the said alleged inducement took place. However, this is in itself a factual inquiry.

The material on record, which includes the reference to a false appointment letter and the assertion of online and offline transfer of payment and whether it raises suspicion or not, is purely a determination that belongs to the trial alone. It is not the function of this Court to make any positive or negative statement about the same. Consequently, this ground is also rejected and the charges framed under Sections 318(4) or 318(4)/3(5), 336(3) or 336(3)/3(5), 338 or 338/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 of BNS are left undisturbed.

The third and most decisive ground relates to the charge framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Before dealing with the said issue, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provision :

From a plain reading of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, it is clear that the same is attracted only when an IPC/BNS offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, is committed on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, knowing that such person belongs to such community. In other words, the accused must first commit an offence under IPC/BNS, punishable with ten years or more years of imprisonment. The said offence must be committed against a member of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Community. The accused must have knowledge that the victim belongs to a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. In last, the punishment prescribed under Sub-section is Life Imprisonment alongwith a fine, looking to the gravity of offence committed against such communities.

In the case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2020) 18 SCC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case of applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. The Hon'ble Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Sharma and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 13 SCC 446 after considering Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has held as under :

In the recent judgment in the case of Dr. Anand Rai v. State of M.P. reported in 2026 Cri LJ 1460 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the charge under the SC/ST Act against the appellant, observing that knowledge of the victim's caste is an essential ingredient for attracting liability under Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The Court held that where the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements are silent on the issue of casteist slurs or the specific identity of the victim as an SC/ST member, the charge cannot stand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that allowing proceedings to continue without a prima facie disclosure of statutory ingredients amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

In the light of aforesaid pronouncements of law, it can easily be observed that for the offences to be constituted under Section 3(2)

If the facts of the present case are tested in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and referring to allegations made in the FIR and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 180 of BNSS), the case of the prosecution was that the present appellant along with co-accused Shivendra Sharma, lured the complainant with the promise that they would help him in securing government employment in the Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Bhopal. In furtherance of the said inducement, they handed over a forged and fabricated appointment letter dated 05/08/2024 and received Rs.1,50,500/- through online and offline modes on various dates.

It is to be noted that the complainant did not disclose his caste to the police at the time of registration of the FIR, nor does the FIR contain any averment regarding the appellant's knowledge of the complainant's caste. The caste certificate placed on record was furnished to the investigating officer only on 14.08.2025, nearly four months after registration of the FIR. The statement of the complainant and that of the witness Vishnu Jatav recorded on 11.08.2025 under Section 183 BNSS are also silent on this aspect. There was no allegation that the accused, not being a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community, committed an offence knowing that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community. Thus, the essential ingredients which are paramount for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act are wholly absent from the material collected during investigation.

Hence, the conclusion is that from the admitted case set up by the prosecution, there is no such allegation that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more, was committed by the appellant upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community with knowledge that such person belonged to the said community. The prima facie ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out from the admitted allegations of the prosecution and to such extent, the charge framed against the appellant is groundless. There is no factual or legal basis for the charge framed against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. In such circumstances, despite the absence of necessary knowledge of fact, continuing with the prosecution under the special provisions of the Act would mean allowing the trial to proceed on an unsupported charge, which this Court cannot allow under its appellate jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing discussions, this appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:

(i). The impugned order dated 15/12/2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sheopur in Special Case No. 83/2025, is set aside insofar as it frames the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

(ii). The charges framed against the appellant under Sections 318(4) or 318(4)/3(5), 336(3) or 336(3)/3(5), 338 or 338/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 shall proceed to trial in accordance with the law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.

It is clarified that observations made in this judgment are confined to the limited purpose of examining the propriety of the charge, are prima facie in nature, and shall not influence the trial in any manner while appreciating the evidence that may be led before it.

A copy of the order be sent to the trial court concerned for information and compliance.