SC/ST Act | Application U/S 482 CrPC Against Orders Of Cognizance & Issuance Of Summons Maintainable: Orissa HC Differs From Allahabad HC

A Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra was of the view that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482, which cannot be guided and controlled by provisions of any statute. By holding so, the High Court has differed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court recently in Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2022 LiveLaw (AB) 264].

Background:

The Court was deciding the nature of the orders of cognizance and issuance of summons under the Act, whether they are 'interlocutory orders' or not. The question of law cropped up as 'interlocutory orders' cannot be appealed under Section 14-A(1) of the Act.

While advancing his contentions, Mr. Sudipto Panda, counsel for the appellant relied on the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay and others v. State of U.P. The Allahabad High Court in that case was required to decide whether an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging an order taking cognizance of offence involving the provisions under S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 by the Special Court is maintainable or not? Therein, the Court had concluded that an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order passed by the Special Court involving the provisions under S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 is not maintainable.

Further the Allahabad High Court had held that if any interlocutory order is passed by the Special Court in a case involving the provision under S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989, the same will come in the category of the orders as provided under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 and as against the said order only an appeal as provided under Section 14-A shall lie to the High Court.

Orissa High Court's Decision:

The Orissa High Court expressed its disagreement with the view adopted by the Allahabad High Court in Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay (supra). Accordingly, it held,

"So far ouster of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court does not agree with such a proposition of law. The power conferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is inherent power. Therefore, the same by no stretch of imagination can be construed that the same is to be guided and controlled by the provisions of any statute. While saying so, this Court is also aware of the proposition of law that when a statute provides for a specific remedy i.e. when an alternative remedy is provided the parties are required to exhaust the said remedy first."

Case Title: Smrutikant Rath & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Case No.: CRLA No. 408 of 2022

Order Dated: 20^th June 2022

Coram: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sudipto Panda, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 121

Click Here To Read/Download Order