JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Saksham Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.01.2024 submitted in furtherance of F.I.R. No. 0797 of 2023, dated 26.11.2023, Police Station P.G.I., Lucknow under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2024, whereby the Court has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and has summoned the applicant to face trial for the offences.

3. Sri. Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Act of 1989’). He has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others Versus State of U.P. and others, 2022 (8) A.D.J. 691 : 2022 SCC OnLine All 975.

4. In reply to the aforesaid preliminary objection, Sri. Saksham Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are inherent powers and there can be no fetters on the exercise of this power. He has submitted that the applicant has been charged for commission of offences under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989. Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no substantive offence defined by Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 and this provision merely makes a provision for imposing an enhanced punishment for certain offences under the I.P.C. under certain conditions. He has made some more submissions to impress upon the Court that the offences alleged are not made out against the applicant even as per the prosecution case, but those arguments need to be gone into only if the objection against maintainability of the application is overcome.

5. In support of his submissions, Sri. Agarwal has placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of State of Harayana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427, Shueb Mahmood Kidwai @ Bobby v. State of U.P., 2021 (4) ADJ 244: 2021 (4) ALJ 28.

6. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides as follows: -

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.— Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

7. Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides that the High Courts shall be Court of records and shall have all the powers of such courts. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It merely clarifies that nothing contained in the Cr.P.C. will limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice