JUDGMENT :

M.R. MENGDEY, J.

1. The present applications have been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to recall the orders dated 19.05.2023 passed by this court in Special Criminal Application No. 6160 of 2023 and Special Criminal Application No. 6171 of 2023.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that Section 15(A) (3) & (5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the “Act”) give an indefeasible right to the victim or his dependant to be heard at any proceeding under the Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceeding.

2.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 15(A) casts duty upon the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government to inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. In present case, the applicant was never informed about the aforesaid Special Criminal Applications being filed before this Court either by the Public Prosecutor or by the State Government. The provision of Section 15(A) (3) & (5) are mandatory in nature and since the said provisions have not been complied with, the order of this Court dated 19.05.2023 should be recalled.

2.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 15(A) of the Act has been upheld by the Apex Court in its judgment in case of Hariram Bhambhi Vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. 2021 SCC Online SC 1010. He submitted that since the mandatory provision of Section 15(A) of the Act was not complied with, this Court ought not to have passed the order dated 19.05.2023 in both the aforesaid applications granting ad-interim relief in favour of the present private respondents. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present applications and recall the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 6160 of 2023 and Special Criminal Application No. 6171 of 2023.

3. Learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the present application by submitting that vide order dated 19.05.2023, this Court has already ordered to issue notice of rule to the present applicant and the proceedings of both the Special Criminal Applications are still pending. Therefore, present applications should be dismissed.

4. Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has opposed the present application by submitting that provision of Section 15(A) 3 of the Act does not preclude this Court from passing an ad-interim order. The proceedings of both the Special Criminal Applications are still pending at large and the applicant herein has been duly served with the notice of rule in both the aforesaid matters and he has appeared through his learned advocate. He relied upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court in case of Pramod Kumar Ray & Ors. Vs. State of Odhisa. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present applications.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. The respective applicants of Special Criminal Application No. 6160 of 2023 and Special Criminal Application No. 6171 of 2023 have invoked the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR in question registered with Khedbrahma Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Section 143 , 427 and 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Act. The matters came up on board before this Court during the vacation on 19.05.2023. On 19.05.2023, after hearing learned advocates for the respective applicants, this Court had passed the following order in both the applications:

“The dispute involved in the matter is with regard to encroachment on the land belonging to Gurjar Prajapati Samajvadi. The record indicates that previously some suit was filed with regard to the said p