Orders Appealable U/S 14A Of SC/ST Act Can't Be Challenged By Filing A Plea U/S 482 Of CrPC: Allahabad HC Reiterates

Sparsh Upadhyay

11 Jun 2024 9:51 AM GMT

  • Orders Appealable U/S 14A Of SC/ST Act Cant Be Challenged By Filing A Plea U/S 482 Of CrPC: Allahabad HC Reiterates

    The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in cases where an appeal against an order would lie under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to challenge that order. Perusing the mandate of Section 14-A of the Act, a bench of Justice Subhash...

    The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in cases where an appeal against an order would lie under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to challenge that order.

    Perusing the mandate of Section 14-A of the Act, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the provision starts with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)” and that in In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, another full bench of the HC has held that “while the constitutional and inherent powers of this Court are not “ousted” by Section 14A, they cannot be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal would lie under Section 14A”.

    The single judge also relied upon the High Court's judgment in the cases of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others and Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90 wherein it has already been held the inherent powers of HC under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal would lie under Section 14A of SC-ST Act and the aggrieved person having remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

    The bench made these observations while dismissing an application filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging the entire proceedings, chargesheet and issuance of a non-bailable offence in connection with a case against the applicant registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 241 IPC & Sections 3 (1)(Da)(Dha) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda.

    When the matter came up for hearing, the AGA-I raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC-ST Act and, therefore, the application under Section 482 CrPC should not be entertained.

    On the other hand, the counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of the Court in Devendra Yadav And 7 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 135 wherein it was held that an order issuing a summons to an accused for an offence under the SC-ST Act could be challenged by way of filing an application under Section 482 of CrPC.

    However, rejecting the contention of the applicant's counsel, the Court noted that the Single Judge in deciding Devendra Yadav relied upon the Supreme Court's Judgment in the cases of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 589 and B Venkateswaran vs P Bakthavatchalam 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14 , the Single Judge, however, failed to notice that Section 14-A of the S.C./S.T. Act was not taken into consideration either in Ramawatar or in B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam.

    The question of effect of Section 14-A of the S.C./S.T. Act on entertainability of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was neither raised not decided in Ramawatar or in B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam and, therefore, those decisions are not relevant for deciding this question. Therefore, those decisions would not affect the binding values of the Full Bench decisions in In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act and Ghulam Rasool Khan v. State of UP,” the Court held as it dismissed the petition.

    The Court, however, left it open to the applicant to avail the statutory remedy under Section 14-A of the 14-A of SC-ST Act.

    Appearances

    Counsel for Applicants: Alok Srivastava, Pranav Tivaree

    Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Alok Srivastava-II and GA Anurag Verma

    Case title - Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Kumar Gupta And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

    Click Here To Read/Download Order


    Next Story