JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 77 of 2007 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 467, 468, 341, 323, 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter called SC/ST Act).

2. The complaint petition is the basis of the present case. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused No. 1-Ram Ratan Singh in collusion with revenue authorities made false settlement of land. On the basis of the settlement of Gairmazurua land, false sale deed has been executed by setting up an imposter.

3. In this manner, Ram Ratan Singh made false settlement with respect to Plot No. 984, Khta No. 147, area 2.40 acre, village Dhuna, P.S. Itkhori. It is also alleged that on 23.02.2007 by administrating liquor to the complainant, got the land registered showing payment of consideration amount of Rupees Three Lakhs and in collusion with the revenue authority, it has also been mutated. When the complainant protested, he was assaulted. They also came to his house and called them by caste name and threatened them with life.

4. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and against the order taking cognizance, the present petition has been filed.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that only to avoid sale deed executed by the complainant in favour of accused No. 1, false and frivolous case has been filed with wild allegation that the sale deed was induced by fraud and administrating him liquor which was executed before the Registrar. The date of incidence in which the complainant was assaulted and derogatory remarks were made regarding his caste, has also not been stated in the complaint petition. It is also submitted that incidence took place inside the house and not in public view and therefore, SC/ST Act will not apply. Reliance is placed on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 Para 11-15, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi; (1983) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1983 SC 67.

6. Learned A.P.P. raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted that under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, only appeal will lie and not a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. It is further submitted that the impugned order is not interlocutory order but an intermediary order in view of ratio decided in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra; (1977) 4 SCC 551. It is further submitted that it has been laid down in Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2017) 14 SCC 809 that if the said order is reversed which will lead to termination of the proceeding that will be final order and not interlocutory order. Reliance has been placed Smrutikant Rath v. State of Odisha; CRLA No. 408 of 2022.

7. On merit, it is submitted that there is specific allegation that petitioner assaulted the complainant by calling his caste name.

8. Through a long line of judicial precedents, law is settled that order taking cognizance is an interlocutory order. It has been held in 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 1140 wherein

45. Section 465 would also be applicable to challenges to interlocutory orders such as a cognizance order or summons order on the ground of irregularity of procedure.

9. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the State that the order of cognizance was not an interlocutory order and therefore, amenable to appeal under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, is not sustainable.

10. The complaint on a plain reading presents hazy account of fraud and forgery committed by the accused persons. The main allegation against the accused persons is that the gairmazurwa land was being illegally settled and revenue receipts were issued by revenue authorities. It is alleged that on 23.02.2007, the accused persons got registered sale deed executed by