# Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1479
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2763 of 2022
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar Ojha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-kumar-sanjay-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48435
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - SC/ST Act,1989 - Section 14
A(1)-Interim order passed in relation to an
offence in S.C./S.T. Act-will come in category of
order provided u/s 14 A(1) of SC/St Act-against
which only Appeal shall lie before the High Court
both on facts and law-

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
(2022)05ILR A1479
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2763 of 2022

Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajiva Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Civil Law - SC/ST Act,1989 - Section 14
A(1)-Interim order passed in relation to an
offence in S.C./S.T. Act-will come in category of
order provided u/s 14 A(1) of SC/St Act-against
which only Appeal shall lie before the High Court
both on facts and law-

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI, (2017) 14 SCC
809

2. Madhu Limaye Vs St. of Mah. (1997) 4 SCC
551

3. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2021) 10 SCC 773
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2.
 Applicants
have
filed
this
application with following prayers:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed in the interest of justice that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and
quash the impugned charge-sheet and
summoning order dated 16-2-2022, passed
by Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur
Kheri summoning the applicants to face
trial vide Special Sessions Trial No.
93/2022,
Crime
No.
314/2020,
U/s
323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) ?, ? of the Act,
Police
Station-
Neemgaon,
District-
Lakhimpur Kheri, contained as Annexures
No. 1 and 2 to this application.

It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the entire criminal proceedings
pending against the applicants in the court
of Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur
Kheri vide Special Sessions Trial No.
93/2022, Crime No. 314/ 2020, U/s
323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) ?, ? of the Act,
Police
Station-
Neemgaon,
District-
Lakhimpur Kheri in pursuance of the
impugned charge sheet and summoning
order, contained as Annexures No. 1 and 2
to this application.

It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue
a
direction
commanding
the
concerned court below to decide the bail
application of the applicants providing
them the benefit of the legal proposition
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
reported case Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Another,
2021(4) Crimes 139 (S.C.)."

3. 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:
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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."

4. From the perusal of the prayer
made by applicants, it is clear that
applicants have prayed to quash the
summoning order dated 16.02.2022 passed
by II Additional Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri,
which reads as follows:

"16.02.2022-

5. In Re: Provision of Section 14a of
SC/ST
(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015, full Bench of this
Court has held as follows:

"B. Whether in view of the
provisions contained in Section 14-A of the
Amending Act, a petition under the
provisions of Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India or a revision under
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure or a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., is maintainable. OR in other
words, whether by virtue of Section 14-A of
the Amending Act, the powers of the High
Court under Articles 226/227 of the
5 All. Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1481
Constitution or its revisional powers or the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stand
ousted?

We therefore answer Question (B)
by holding that while the constitutional and
inherent powers of this Court are not
"ousted" by Section 14A, they cannot be
invoked in cases and situations where an
appeal would lie under Section 14A.
Insofar as the powers of the Court with
respect to the revisional jurisdiction is
concerned, we find that the provisions of
Section
397
Cr.P.C.
stand
impliedly
excluded by virtue of the special provisions
made in Section 14A. This, we hold also in
light of our finding that the word "order"
as occurring in sub-section(1) of Section
14A would also include intermediate
orders."

6. In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI
(Supra), Honble Apex Court in para 21 has
specifically stated referring the judgement
of
Madhu
Limaye
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra (1997) 4 SCC 551 that taking
cognizance of an offence and summoning
the accused is intermediate order, thus
impugned
summoning
order
dated
16.02.2022 is an intermediate order.

7. Now it is to be seen whether
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. lies against the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
16.02.2022 or appeal will lie under Section
14A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act.

8. Relevant portion of Section 14A(1)
of the S.C./S.T. Act. are quoted below for
ready reference:

"14A.
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."From the
perusal of provisions of Section 14A(1) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989,
it is clear that an Appeal shall lie from any
judgement, cognizance order, order not
being interlocutory order of Special Court,
or an exclusive Special Court to the High
Court, both on facts and on law."

9. Full Bench of this Court in Re:
Provision of Section 14a of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015 while answering question B has
specifically stated- "we hold also in light of
our finding that the word "order" as
occurring in sub-section(1) of Section 14A
would also include intermediate orders.

10. Thus if any intermediate order is
passed by Special Court or an exclusive
Special Court in case relating to an offence
in the S.C./S.T. Act, that will come in the
category of order as provided under Section
14A(1) of SC/ST Act against which only an
appeal shall lie before the High Court, both
on facts and on law.

11. In view of the above discussion, I
am
of
the
considered
opinion
that
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed
against summoning order dated 16.02.2022
passed by Learned II Additional Sessions
Judge/
Special
Judge,
S.C./S.T. Act,
Lakhimpur Kheri.

12. Perusal of prayer further reveals
that prayer has also been made to issue a
direction commanding the court below to
decide the bail application of the applicants
providing them the benefit of the legal
proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the reported case Satender Kumar
1482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
& Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

13. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued
guidelines to trial courts and High Courts to
keep them in mind while considering the
bail applications. A copy of the aforesaid
judgment was also ordered to be circulated
to the Registrars of different High Courts to
be further circulated to the trial courts so
that necessary bail matters do not come up
before Hon'ble Apex Court. Relevant
portion of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) is
quoted as under:-

"5. The trial courts and the High
Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid
guidelines
while
considering
bail
applications. The caveat which has been
put by the learned ASG is that where the
accused have not cooperated in the
investigation non appeared before the
investigating
officers,
nor
answered
summons when the courts feels that judicial
custody of the accused is necessary for the
completion of the trial, where further
investigation including a possible recovery
is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot
give them benefit, something we agree with.

10. A copy of this order be
circulated to the Registrars of the different
High Courts to be further circulated to the
trial courts so that the necessary bail
matters do not come up to this Court."

14. During the course of arguments,
Advocates complained that Districts Courts
do not follow dictum of Satender Kumar
Antil (supra) unless specifically directed
by the High Court. This is a sorry state of
affair. The law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil
(supra) is law of land and is binding upon
all courts in India.

15. Hence, there is no need to issue a
direction to the trial court concerned to
decide the bail application applying the
legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the reported case Satender
Kumar Antil (supra).

16. However, it would be appropriate
that a copy of this order be sent to the
Registrar General of Allahabad High Court,
who if required may issue circular to all the
courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh under
subordination of High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad to follow the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar
Antil (supra).

17. This Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
is disposed of with the observation that
applicants are permitted to file fresh
petition before the appropriate forcum.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1482
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4022 of 2021

Ramesh Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anupam Mehrotra, Anil Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Akash Prasad, Amitav Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Cognizance
order and order committing case to Court of
Session
challenged-chargesheet
filed
on
relevant material and evidences-sufficient as per