Appeal dismissed — ruling against Ramvishal (Appellant)
In Short
A carpenter claimed his shop owner abused him using casteist slurs and threatened him over unpaid wages. The court dismissed his appeal, ruling that the core issue was simply a money dispute over wages, not a caste-based crime.
The Parties
Party A: Ramvishal
Party B: Mukesh Kesherwani and State of U.P.
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. Anoop Kumar Sharma, Learned Advocate Mr. Jitendra Singh, Learned Advocate Mr. Santosh Prajapati, Learned Advocate Mr. Vikas Rastogi
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar Tripathi, Learned Advocate Mr. G.A.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Santosh Rai
What the Case Was About
Ramvishal worked as a carpenter in a furnishing shop run by Mukesh Kesherwani. He claimed he was owed Rs. 1,65,000 in wages, out of which he had received Rs. 45,000, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,20,000. When he demanded his remaining money, he alleged that the shop owner abused him with caste-indicative words, assaulted him, and threatened to kill him. After the police initially submitted a final report due to a lack of evidence, the worker filed a protest petition and a criminal complaint case. When the lower court rejected his complaint, he took the matter to the High Court in an appeal.
Judgment Date
13 October, 2026
The Outcome
The court dismissed the criminal appeal, ruling that the lower court was correct to reject the complaint because no strong prima facie case was made out against the accused.
What the Court Looked At
- The court observed that the main dispute was actually about unpaid wages rather than a targeted caste-based attack.
- The court noted that the appellant admitted he did not suffer any physical injuries during the alleged incident.
- The court found that no reliable or unequivocal caste-related words were proven to show an intentional effort to humiliate the worker solely because of his community.
- The court pointed out that Section 504 of the IPC is not even listed among the scheduled offences required to trigger certain harsher charges under the SC/ST Act.
The offence is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, unless there is a clear intention to humiliate him for that reason.
What This Means For You
This case shows that mixing a routine business or payment dispute with serious criminal charges requires solid, undeniable proof—especially when alleging special atrocities laws. If you are dealing with unpaid wages or workplace disagreements, turning a money conflict into a caste-abuse case without independent witnesses, injuries, or clear evidence of targeted humiliation will likely fail in court. Judges carefully examine whether a crime actually happened or if a civil dispute is being dressed up as a criminal offense. If you find yourself tangled in a confusing dispute or facing complicated court procedures, Setback Solutions can help you understand your options and coordinate your next steps in plain, simple language.
You Still Have Options
Dealing with a dismissed complaint or a complicated criminal case can feel overwhelming and stressful. Whether you are facing a false FIR, stuck with a rejected petition, or simply unsure of your next legal step, it is definitely not the end of the road. You can still explore getting a second opinion, reviewing your case documents, or seeking non-judicial guidance. Reach out to Setback Solutions for help understanding your options and coordinating the next step. Please remember, Setback Solutions is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or guarantee any specific court result; we are here to offer plain-language help and coordination only.