Facts: The appellant, Dr. Anand Rai, was accused of participating in a protest by the JAYS organization on 15th November 2022, where vehicles of public officials were intercepted and a security personnel was injured. An FIR was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The appellant filed an application for discharge, arguing that the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act offences, specifically the use of casteist slurs and knowledge of the victim's caste, were absent in the prosecution's material. The Trial Court partially allowed discharge but maintained charges under Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.Procedural Posture: The appellant challenged the Trial Court's order before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the framing of charges. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition.Issue: Whether the charges under the SC/ST Act can be sustained when the prosecution material lacks averments regarding caste-based intent, knowledge of the victim's caste, or the use of casteist slurs.Holding: No, the charges under the SC/ST Act cannot stand. The Court quashed the charges under the SC/ST Act while allowing the trial to proceed for the IPC offences.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that for a charge under Section 3(2)(v) or 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act to be sustainable, there must be prima facie evidence that the offence was committed with the knowledge that the victim belonged to an SC/ST community. The Trial Court itself had noted that no witness mentioned the use of casteist slurs. Furthermore, the High Court failed in its duty as a first appellate court by mechanically affirming the order without an independent evaluation of whether the statutory ingredients were met. The Court emphasized that while a mini-trial is prohibited at the stage of framing charges, the judiciary must not frame charges by default if the essential legal ingredients are "conspicuously absent", as the criminal process itself can become a form of punishment.