1. Heard Sri Alok Srivastava-II, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the charge-sheet No. 01/2023 dated 16.03.2023 as well as the summoning order dated 25.05.2023 and the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda issuing a non-bailable warrant against the applicant and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 806 of 2023; State versus Sumit Kumar Gupta & Ors, relating to Case Crime No. 70 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 241 IPC & Sections 3 (1)(Da)(Dha) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, Police Station Kaudia, District Gonda pending in the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda.

3. The learned AGA-I has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has got a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and, therefore, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be entertained.

4. The learned AGA-I has relied upon a decision of this Court in Pawan Kumar Alias Pawan Yadav v. State of UP & Ors: 2024 AHC LKO 13846: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 730 of 2024 decided on 16.02.2024.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Devendra Yadav & 7 Ors v. State of U.P & Os: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11043 of 2023 decided on 10.04.2023.

6. 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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.

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

8. The question of maintainability of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in spite of availability of remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the S.C./S.T. Act has been considered by this Court in Shivam Kashyap v. State of U.P.: 2024 SCC OnLine All 376, and the relevant part of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced below: -

“7. In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 SCC OnLine All 2087 : (2018) 6 ALJ 631, 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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document