Point of law : Insofar as the powers of the Court with respect to revisional jurisdiction is concerned, we find that the provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C. stand impliedly excluded by virtue of the special provisions made in Section 14A. This, we hold also in light of our finding that the word "order" as occurring in sub-section(1) of Section 14A would also include intermediate orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Special S.T. No.187 of 2020 U/s 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(D), Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad (Prayagraj) arising out of Case Crime No. 0223 of 2020 U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(D), Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj alongwith charge-sheet dated 09.07.2020 submitted by the police against the applicant for the offence as well as cognizance order dated 2.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad (Prayagraj).

3. In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations in para nos. 21, 22 and 23:

"21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.

22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said :

It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."

23. We may note that in different cases, different expressions are used for the same category of orders-sometimes it is called an intermediate order, sometimes a quasi-final order and sometimes it is called an order that is a matter of moment. Our preference is for the expression "intermediate order" since that brings out the nature of the order more explicitly."

4. From the perusal of the prayer made by applicant, it is clear that applicant has prayed to quash the cognizance order dated 2.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad (Prayagraj) which reads as follows:

^^02-12-2019&

vkt foospd {ks=kf/kdkjh djNu% Á;kxjkt vijk/k la[;k&223@2020] /kkjk&323] 504 o 506 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ,oa /kkjk&8¼1½ Mh] ,p vuq0 tkfr@vuq0 tu0 vR;kpkj fu0 vf/k0] Fkkuk uSuh ls lEcf/kr leLr Ái= ,oa vkjksii= ds lkFk U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSA muds }kjk vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh ds fo#) /kkjk&323] 504 o 506 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ,oa /kkjk&3¼2½ Mh] ,p vuq0 tkfr@vu