A.F.R.

Court No. - 49

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12850 of 2021

Applicant :- Sher Ali

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- A Kumar Srivastava,Anand Kumar

Upadhyay,Husnaara Khatoon

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the record.

This Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to

quash the entire criminal proceeding of Special S.T. No. 187 of

2020 U/s 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(D), Dha

SC/ST Act, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj pending before

learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad (Prayagraj) arising

out of Case Crime No. 0223 of 2020 U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

and Section 3(1)(D), Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Naini, District

Prayagraj alongwith charge-sheet dated 09.07.2020 submitted

by the police against the applicant for the offence as well as

cognizance order dated 2.12.2020 passed by learned Special

Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad (Prayagraj).

In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, three

Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has made following

observations in para nos. 21, 22 and 23:

"21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in

Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final

order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle

that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when

reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby

resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come

to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an

accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are

interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and

summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the

proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her

favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect

of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or

her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a

certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another

way, the proceedings would continue.

22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in

K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed

challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was

said :

It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is

interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not

whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath

v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v.

State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The

feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it

would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on

such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged

in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised

by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution

proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard,

the order was revisable."

23. We may note that in different cases, different expressions are used for

the same category of orders-sometimes it is called an intermediate order,

sometimes a quasi-final order and sometimes it is called an order that is a

matter of moment. Our preference is for the expression "intermediate

order" since that brings out the nature of the order more explicitly."

From the perusal of the prayer made by applicant, it is clear that

applicant has prayed to quash the cognizance order dated

2.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,

Allahabad (Prayagraj) which reads as follows:

"02.12.2019