The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that a person’s caste remains unchanged even after marrying someone from a different caste. Justice Anil Kumar-X dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a summoning order under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, rejecting the appellants’ argument that the informant lost her SC/ST status upon marrying a person from the Jat community.
Background of the Case
The criminal appeal was preferred under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by Dinesh and eight others against the State of U.P. and another.
The appellants challenged an order dated July 27, 2022, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022. By this impugned order, the trial court had summoned the appellants to face trial for offences under Sections 323, 506, 452, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act, regarding an incident under the jurisdiction of Police Station Khair, District Aligarh.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellants, Advocate Ashutosh Kumar Mishra argued that his clients were falsely implicated as a counterblast to an earlier FIR. He submitted that an FIR (Case Crime No. 442 of 2021) was lodged by the appellants against the informant and her family members on September 7, 2021, under various IPC sections, and that family members of the appellants had also sustained injuries.
Furthermore, the appellants’ counsel contended that the informant, who originally belongs to the SC/ST community from West Bengal, had married a person belonging to the Jat community. He argued that the informant had concealed this fact and that “a woman, after marrying a person of another caste, loses her original caste which she held since birth and thereafter belongs to the caste of her husband.” On this premise, the appellants argued that summoning them under the SC/ST Act was unsustainable.
Representing the State and the informant, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) and Advocate Upendra Kumar Pushkar countered that the incidents narrated in the FIR and the complaint were simultaneous and occurred on the same date. They submitted that the informant was assaulted, abused with casteist slurs, and that three persons, including the informant, were injured in the incident. They argued that the claim of a counterblast was entirely untenable.
The Court’s Analysis
After hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, the High Court analyzed the validity of the summoning order. The Court noted that the Special Judge had appropriately summoned the appellants after considering the statements of the informant and her witnesses, along with the medical injury reports.
Addressing the argument regarding the prior FIR, the Court held that a cross-case does not automatically invalidate a rival complaint. The Court explicitly noted: “The existence of a cross-case does not constitute a ground to discard a complaint filed by the opposite party on a rival version.” The Court concluded that the trial court committed no illegality in summoning the appellants.
On the crucial legal question regarding the loss of caste post-marriage, the High Court firmly rejected the appellants’ submissions. The Court observed: “Though a person may change religion, his or her caste remains the same despite conversion to another religion. Hence, marriage does not change a person’s caste. Therefore, the said contention is unsustainable.”
Decision
Finding no merit in the appellants’ arguments regarding the cross-case or the informant’s caste status following her marriage, the High Court upheld the summoning order and dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dinesh And 8 Others Versus State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6081 of 2022
- Judge: Justice Anil Kumar-X
- Counsel for Appellant(s): Ashutosh Kumar Mishra
- Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A., Upendra Kumar Pushkar
