IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 530 of 2020

Karthik Jayashankar and another ...... Petitioners

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand

and another

..... Respondents

Present:-

Mr. P.B. Suresh and Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocates for the

petitioners.

Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. with Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief

Holder for the State.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by

Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the respondent no.2

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to

chargesheet dated 28.07.2020 as well as cognizance

order dated 21.07.2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial

No. 06 of 2020, State Vs. Smt. Parvati Lal and another,

by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Special

Judge, SC/ST Act, Nainital (“the case”) as well as the

entire proceedings of the case.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

2

3.

Facts

necessary

to

appreciate

the

controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The case is

based on an FIR No. 03 of 2020, lodged under Sections

504, 506 & 427 IPC and Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(i)(z) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”), by the respondent

no.2 (the informant) on 01.06.2020 at Revenue Police

Station Sarna, Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital. According

to it, on 27.05.2020, when the informant along with his

son and a Vijay Adhikari visited his property situated in

Jeeling Estate, he found that the locks of his house were

broken and the furniture and other articles were missing

from the house. At that time, the petitioners, according

to the FIR, abused the informant & insulted him with

caste coloured remarks. They also threatened him that

they would not allow the informant to stay at that place.

It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet

has been submitted, on which cognizance was taken. It

is impugned herein.

4.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioners would submit that the petitioners have

challenged the chargesheet. In case, the chargesheet is

quashed, the summoning order automatically would

3

extinct. He would submit the following points in his

arguments:-

4.1.

The summoning order is an interlocutory

order. It is not appealable, as per Section 14A of the Act.

4.2.

Only bail is an interlocutory order, which is

appealable, as per Section 14A(2) of the Act. On this

aspect, learned counsel has referred to the judgment in

the case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State through CBI, 1980

Supp SCC 92.

4.3.

In the case of V.C. Shukla (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the test to

determine as to what is interlocutory order and what

amounts to final order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed as hereunder:-

“34. There is yet another aspect of the matter which

has to be considered so far as this decision is

concerned, to which we shall advert when we deal

with the last plank of the argument of the learned

counsel for the appellant. Suffice it to say at the

moment that the case referred to also fully endorses

the view taken by the Federal Court and the English

decisions viz. that an order is not a final but an

interlocutory one if it does not determine or decide the

rights of parties once for all. Thus, on a consideration

4

of the authorities, mentioned above, the following

propositions emerge:

“(1) that an order which does not determine the

right of the parties but only one aspect of the

suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;

(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to

be explained in contradistinction to a final order.

In other words, if an order is not a final order, it

would be an interlocutory order;

(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the

English courts and the Federal Court is to see if

the order is decided in one w