Mere Use of Profession-Related Words Does Not Constitute SC/ST Atrocity: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a mere reference to a person’s profession, without intent to humiliate on the basis of caste, does not attract the rigours of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act in a case arising out of a wage dispute between a domestic worker and her employer.

Allowing the appeal filed by one Harshit @ Honey in part, court set aside the summoning order dated August 9, 2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar, insofar as it related to offences under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the Act. However, court permitted criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC [Section 115, 352, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)] to continue in accordance with law.

The appeal was filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, challenging the summoning order 2024 case registered at Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

According to the record, the dispute arose when the complainant, who used to wash clothes for the appellant, demanded her wages. She alleged that she was abused and harassed, and that caste-related words were used against her. The prosecution case was that the altercation occurred when she demanded payment for her work.

The appellant argued that the trial court had committed a serious procedural error by converting a protest petition into a complaint without first accepting or rejecting the final report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) CrPC. The Investigating Officer had earlier found the allegations in the FIR to be false and submitted a final report.

Relying on a previous coordinate bench decision, the appellant contended that the trial court was required to expressly disagree with the police report before converting the protest petition into a complaint.

The state and the complainant opposed the appeal, arguing that once the protest petition had been converted into a complaint and statements were recorded, the appellant could not question the earlier conversion order. They further submitted that the complainant had specifically alleged harassment and caste-based abuse when she demanded her wages.

On the procedural issue, the high court observed that although conversion of a protest petition into a complaint requires disagreement with the final report, a specific recital of such disagreement is not mandatory. If the court proceeds to convert the protest petition into a complaint, it inherently implies that the final report has not been accepted.

Turning to the merits, the court examined the factual background and noted that a contractual relationship existed between the parties, as the complainant worked as a washerwoman for the appellant. The dispute, the court said, stemmed from her demand for unpaid wages.

Court further noted that the complainant had mentioned that words indicating her profession were used. It held that merely calling a person by reference to their profession would not, by itself, attract provisions of the SC/ST Act unless it is established that the words were intentionally used to humiliate the victim on the basis of caste.

In the absence of material to show such intentional humiliation, the court found that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the Act were not made out.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed and the summoning order was quashed to the extent it related to the offences under the SC/ST Act. The proceedings under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC shall continue before the trial court in accordance with law.

Case Title: Harshit @ Honey vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: February 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Anil Kumar-X