SC/ST Act | Application U/S 482 CrPC Against Order Of Issuance Of Summons Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently held that an order issuing a summons to an accused for an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be challenged by way of filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi held so while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the cases of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 589 and B Venkateswaran vs P Bakthavatchalam 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14 wherein the Top Court had held that criminal proceedings arising out of SC/ST Act can be quashed invoking powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

With this, the High Court has differed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court last year in Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 264.

The case in brief

The Court was essentially dealing with the Section 482 CrPC plea moved by 8 accused challenging the summoning order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ ST Act, Kanpur Dehat in November 2022 to face charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354Kha, 452, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act.

The summoning order was issued by the Court after treating a Section 156(3) CrPC application moved before it as a complaint case and proceeding the said application case as a complaint case under Chapter XV of CrPC.

It was the primary contention of the accused that the said summoning order was passed without any application of mind and without holding the requisite mandatory inquiry as contemplated in Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

At the outset, the AGA, appearing for the state, challenged the maintainability of the application under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that as per the full bench's judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, wherein it was held that an aggrieved person, having a remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Responding to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the counsel for the applicants refuted the submissions of AGA by arguing that there is catena of decisions of Apex Court with regard to the maintainability of the 482 Cr.P.C. application, even though the provisions of SC/ST Act is present.

In this regard, the Counsel for the applicants relied upon the Top Court's decision in the case of Ramawatar (supra), wherein it was held that criminal proceedings arising out of the SC/ST Act can be quashed by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 of CrPC and the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC.

It was further contended that since, while deciding the case of Gulam Rasool Khan (supra), the HC never relied upon or even considered the ratio laid down in the judgment of Ramawatar (supra) and thus, the same could be safely termed as per incuriam.

Against this backdrop, the Court referred to Top Court's judgment in the case of B Venkateswaran (supra) to observe thus:

"...it is clear that Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly and time and again have opined that elaborating the aforesaid provision of full bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court and taking the help of the aforesaid judgments, the Court is of the considered opinion that 482 Cr.P.C. application could be filed assailing the summoning order."

Consequently, the Court entertained the Section 482 CrPC application filed by the accused and allowed the same after concluding that the summoning order of the court was not passed with an application of any judicial mind or judicial satisfaction of the court.

The Court also questioned the order of the court concerned on the ground that the same was passed without holding the requisite mandatory inquiry as contemplated in Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the Court held, the impugned summoning order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Importantly, the Court also observed that since parallel proceeding by way of FIR is already progressing and the present controversy is nothing but an arm twisting of the applicants by levelling more serious and grim allegations in it and therefore, it cannot be sustained. With this, the application was ALLOWED.

Case title - Devendra Yadav And 7 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11043 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 135

Click Here To Read/Download Order