IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 precludes the invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Trideep Narayan and Ms. Charu Singh Advocates, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and Sri G. K. Dikshit, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged validity of the charge-sheet dated 12.10.2023 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.3088 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.385 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C. & Section 3 (2) 5 of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow.

3. The learned A.G.A.-I has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has not challenged the validity of the summoning order and without him having been summoned, the applicant would have no cause of action to challenge the proceedings. He has submitted that the applicant has the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 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, the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment in “In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015” : 2018 SCC OnLine All 2087 and Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761.

5. Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Act’) provides as follows: -

“14-A. 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.

6. A bare perusal of Section 14-A of the Act shows that it starts with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”.

7. In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act ; (2018) 6 ALJ 631 = 2018 SCC OnLine All 2087, the five questions considered by the Full Bench, and answers given to those questions, were as follows: -

“A. Whether provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 14-A and the second proviso to subsection (3) of Section 14-A of the Amending Act, are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, being unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary?

While we reject the challenge to section 14A(2), we declare that the second proviso to Section 14A(3) is clearly violative of both Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is not just m