SC/ST Act Offences | Can Entire Case Proceedings Be Challenged In Plea U/S 482 CrPC? : Allahabad HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench

A bench of Justice JJ Munir referred the issue in question as it noted that there were conflicting judgments of the High Court regarding the maintainability of such an application moved under Section 482 CrPC.

The court noted that the opinion of a Single Judge of the HC in Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay and Others vs. State Of UP and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 264 was in conflict with the opinion of another Single Judge in Devendra Yadav And 7 Others vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 135

For context, in Anuj Kumar's case (Supra), it was held that an Application U/s 482 CrPC can't be filed against a summoning order passed by a Special Judge in an SC/ST Act Offence.

It was further held therein that where the accused seeks quashing of the proceedings of the case/charge sheet together with the summoning and the cognizance order, the remedy is by way of an appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ ST Act

On the other hand, in the Devendra Yadav case (supra), it was held that an order issuing a summons to an accused for an offence under the SC/ST Act can be challenged by way of filing an application under Section 482 CrPC.

The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi held so while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the cases of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 589 and B Venkateswaran vs P Bakthavatchalam 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14 wherein the Top Court had held that criminal proceedings arising out of SC/ST Act can be quashed invoking powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

The occasion to refer the issue to a large bench arose by the bench of Justice Munir while dealing with a bunch of Section 482 CrPC pleas concerning SC/ST Act offences.

In its order, taking into account the conflict in both the Judgments of the HC, Justice Munir was of the view that it would be futile for him, sitting singly, to analyse the conflicting reasonings of the Singles Judges and give his own opinion which would add to the intensity of the conflict.

He also noted that apart from the added conflict that his further opinion, sitting singly, would bring, any comment on merits now would be contrary to the settled principles of judicial discipline in such matters.

Therefore, refraining from saying anything, the Court referred the following questions to a larger Bench:

• Whether a challenge laid to the entire proceedings of a case under the SC/ST Act with no challenge to any interlocutory order i.e. a summoning order, would be within the mischief of the rule laid down in answer to Question No. (III) by the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan vs. State of UP and others?
• Whether a challenge to a proceeding under the SC/ ST Act can be laid before this Court through an Application under Section 482, in view of the principle in the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra), where along with proceedings, the order taking cognizance and summoning the applicant is also challenged.

It may be noted that in the Ghulam Rasool case, it was inter alia held that an aggrieved person who has not availed of the remedy of an appeal under the provisions of Section 14A of SC/ST cannot be allowed to approach the High Court by preferring an application under the provisions of Section 482 of the CrPC.

Appearances

Case title - Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359

Click Here To Read/Download Order