SC/ST Act Offences | Plea U/S 482 CrPC Maintainable When Entire Case Proceedings Are Challenged: Allahabad HC Answers Reference

The Allahabad High Court has observed that when a challenge lies to the entire proceeding of a case registered under the SC/ST Act, the High Court could entertain the case under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the end of justice.

The Court held that there could be no hard and fast rule regarding the interference of the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction, and it may if it finds that by interfering in a particular case, it can prevent the misuse or abuse of the Court or law, always so interfere.

Importantly, the Court, however, clarified that while it can also look into the correctness and validity of the summoning order, etc. when it takes cognizance of the entire proceeding under Section 482 CrPC, but when the entire proceedings are not under challenge under Section 482, the only course open to an accused/applicant is to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act.

In this regard, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Gulam Mustafa vs State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421

With this, a bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar answered a reference from a single judge in September of this year. The reference was made after the single judge had noted that there were conflicting judgments of the High Court regarding the maintainability of such an application moved under Section 482 CrPC. Thus, the issue needed to be clarified by a larger bench.

For context, the following questions were referred to a larger Bench:

• Whether a challenge laid to the entire proceedings of a case under the SC/ST Act with no challenge to any interlocutory order i.e. a summoning order, would be within the mischief of the rule laid down in answer to Question No. (III) by the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan vs. State of UP and others?
• Whether a challenge to a proceeding under the SC/ ST Act can be laid before this Court through an Application under Section 482, in view of the principle in the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra), where along with proceedings, the order taking cognizance and summoning the applicant is also challenged.

Here it may be noted that in the Ghulam Rasool case, it was inter alia held that an aggrieved person who has not availed of the remedy of an appeal under the provisions of Section 14A of SC/ST cannot be allowed to approach the High Court by preferring an application under the provisions of Section 482 of the CrPC.

While answering the reference, the division bench considered the ruling in the Ghulam Rasool case and distinguished it from the present case. The court noted that the question referred to it in the present case had a completely different tenor from Question No. III, which the Full Bench answered in Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra).

The court explained that the Ghulam Rasool case dealt with the issue of whether a person with a remedy under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act could approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. However, in the present case, the question was whether a person, challenging the entire proceedings under the SC/ST Act without contesting any interlocutory orders (such as the summoning order), could approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

In its order, the division bench also explained the difference between a proceeding being 'not maintainable' and 'not liable to be entertained'. The Court observed that 'Not being maintainable' would mean that the proceedings would not lie at all, whereas 'not liable to be entertained' would mean that the application, though it would lie, shall not be entertained in the given facts of the case.

"The distinction may seems to be fine, and at times, it gets blurred, but nevertheless, it does exist and has to be compulsorily kept in mind. Whether an application involving the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to be entertained or not is a question to be considered and answered case to a case basis in the given facts- and circumstances of the case, and no general proposition or straight jacket formula could be laid down. The guiding principle is whether, in the given case, the continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and/ or whether interference of the High Court is necessary to secure ends of justice," the Court remarked. 

Against this backdrop, the court, while answering the reference, directed to place the matter before the concerned bench.

Before parting, apart from recording our appreciation for the hard work which was done by the lawyers who appeared in the various cases, the Court thanked Senior Advocate VP Srivastava, and Advocates Sushil Shukla, Vijeta Singh and AGA Amit Sinha for their immense assistance in the case.

Case title - Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters