Order framing charges is interlocutory, not final or appealable under Section 14A of SC&ST Act, as it neither terminates proceedings nor decides parties' rights conclusively; alternative remedies available.

Cr.M.P(M) No. 129 of 2026

1.For the reasons enumerated in the application, delay of 16 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal No.3 of 2026

2. Be registered.

3. By way of present appeal, the appellant has laid challenge to the order dated 23.09.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehar, whereby charges under Sections 115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short” SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), had been framed against him.

4. This Court had asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to how the appeal is maintainable against an order of framing of charge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order framing the charge cannot be termed as an interlocutory order and, therefore, an appeal against framing of charge is maintainable. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) 1977 (4) SCC 137 titled Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and another ;

(ii) 1977 (4) SCC 551 titled Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra ;

(iii) 1980 (Supp.) SCC 92 titled V.C. Shukla vs. State through C.B.I.

(iv) 2017 (14) SCC 809 titled Girish Kumar Suneja vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ;

(v) 2022 (15) SCC 720 titled Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ; and

(vi) 2023 (15) SCR 1067 titled Shashikant Sharma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another .

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that as per Section 14A of the SC & ST Act, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order to the High Court both on facts and on law. Relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced hereunder:-

“14A. Appeals.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

(3). Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of ninety days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days.

(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that since the ‘framing of charge’ is not an ‘interlocutory order’, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye’s case (supra), the appeal is maintainable.

8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State has vehemently contended that even