IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act, even when statutory remedies exist, to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. In an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") being Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.43713 of 2022 (Sushil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.), a learned Single Judge, while deciding the case on 22.3.2023, had held that an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for the quashing of the entire proceedings of a particular Sessions Trial which included the offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of section 14-A of the SC/ST Act. In that case, the learned Single Judge, after referring to the judgments of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584, Arnit Das v. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (5) SCC 488, In Re: Provisions of Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (CRIMINAL WRIT- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.8 of 2018) decided on 10.10.2018 and on Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR Online 2022 All 68 (FB), concluded that when an enactment for redressal of grievances creates a statutory remedy, the exercise of inherent powering by way of entertaining a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be done.

2. However, another learned Single Judge in another case, Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.11043 of 2023 (Devendra Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.), while deciding the case on 10.4.2023, had held, again relying upon the judgments of Ramawatar (supra) and specifically relying upon paragraph nos.9 and 16 of that judgment, that even if the statutory appeal under section 14-A of the SC/ST Act was available, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. could be entertained keeping in view the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ramawatar (supra) and B.Venkateswaran & Ors. v. P. Bakthavatchalm reported in AIR 2023 SC 262.

3. Confronted by these two judgments, a learned Judge of our Court, on 20.9.2023, referred the matter to a Larger Bench after framing the following questions :

"1. The first Question involved in this batch of Applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') is whether a challenge laid to the entire proceedings of a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC/ ST Act') with no challenge to any interlocutory order i.e. a summoning order, would be within the mischief of the rule laid down in answer to Question No. (II) by the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (8) ADJ 691 (FB) (LB).

2. The allied and second Question involved is whether a challenge to a proceeding under the SC/ ST Act can be laid before this Court through an Application under Section 482 of the Code, in view of the principle in the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra), where along with proceedings, the order taking cognizance and summoning the applicant is also challenged.

3. The third and a corollary to the aforesaid questions is: Whether there is a conflict of opinion between the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sushil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2023) 123 ACC 544 and Devendra Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2023 (5) ADJ 452, necessitating reference to a larger bench."

4. While the facts of the leading case of Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi in Application U/S 482 No.8635 of 2023 were taken into consideration while referring the matter, learned Single Judge had also given the gist of the other 19 cases, which were before him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant in the Application U/S 482 No.8635 of 2023 (Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi v. State of U.P. & Anr.), Shri Jayant Kumar has, while extending his arguments, drawn the attention of the Court to the Question No.