PRAYAGRAJ, Aug. 21 -- The Allahabad high court has held that mere use of a caste name like 'Chamar' does not automatically attract provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act unless there was an intent to humiliate the victim. Allowing a criminal appeal filed by one Vegraj Singh and another, Justice Santosh Rai quashed a Bareilly court's summon order issued under Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier section 319 of CrPC) dated March 21, 2025 In its August 13 order, the high court observed, "Mere use of the word "Chamar", however, would not, by itself, establish that the appellants used the said word with the intention or knowledge of insulting or humiliating the victim on the ground of her belonging to an SC/ST community." In this case, a first information report (FIR) was registered in 2024 at Izzatnagar police station of Bareilly involving allegations of rape and intimidation. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the main accused Himmat Singh. His father Vegraj and elder brother Daulat were initially exonerated by the police. During the trial, the victim claimed the appellants had used the word "Chamar" against her, after which the trial court summoned them to face trial. The appellants challenged this summoning order in the high court, arguing that the victim had not assigned them any specific role during her earlier statements regarding casteist remarks. The court relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held that the power under Section 319 CrPC (Section 358 of BNSS) is extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly, and requires evidence stronger than the prima facie case applied at the stage of framing the charge. "In the absence of any reliable, sterling material or evidence pointing unmistakably towards the complicity of the appellant, the trial court erred in law by summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a casual and cavalier manner," the high court said....