JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 469 of 2022 (State vs. Sushil Kumar Singh) arising gout of Case Crime No. 45 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khajani, District Gorakhpur including the charge sheet as well as cognizance order dated 8.2.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge) SC/ST Act, Gorkahpur.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned A.G.A. regarding maintainability of the application on the ground that the applicant has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal challenging the cognizance/summoning order under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (in short 1989 Act). It is submitted that the present 482 petition is not maintainable in view of opening line of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is a statutory provision and this section starts with non-obstant clause that “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.” In support of his contention, learned A.G.A. has relied upon the Full Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2022 (0) Supreme (All) 608 and In Re: Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 [Criminal Writ Public Interest Litigation No. 8 of 2018] decided on 10.10.2018.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that against the order impugned, petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. He further submitted that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be ousted by Section 14-A of the Act. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Ramavawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (0) Supreme (SC) 625 and Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, 2020 (0) Supreme (SC) 653.

5. Learned AGA has further pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court has never considered the issue, in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, as to whether appeal would lie under Section 14-A of the Act, 1989 or petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. would lie against the cognizance order passed of special Court, therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be said to be a binding. In support of his argument, learned A.G.A. relied upon the case of Arnit Das vs. Sate of Bihar, 2000 (5) SCC 488, in which while examining the binding effect of such a decision, the Apex Court observed that “A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceedings on a conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined.” He has also relied upon the case of N. Bhargavan Pillai vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2317, to contend that if any view has been expressed without analyzing the statutory provision, it cannot be treated as a binding precedent.

6. Learned A.G.A. further taking recourse to Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also contended that when a special Act, provides remedy of appeal from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Cour