Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Framing Of Charge Not "Final Order"; Appeal Not Maintainable U/S 14A SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
|Court clarifies that order framing charge is neither a final order nor appealable under Section 14A of SC/ST Act.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal against an order framing charge is not maintainable, even under the appellate provision contained in Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act).
The Court observed that even if such an order is treated as an “intermediate order” rather than strictly interlocutory, it still does not qualify as a final order or judgment. Therefore, it cannot be appealed under Section 14A of the Act.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Vacation Judge observed, “Even if assumingly the order of framing of charge would not construed to be an interlocutory order but an intermediate order, even then the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal shall lie only from any judgment, sentence or order not being an interlocutory order. Since the charge is neither the judgment nor sentence, the appeal is not maintainable”.
“Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that framing of charge cannot be construed as final order, the appeal is not maintainable. The aggrieved party can avail the remedy of revisional jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction of this Court under the BNSS or other laws if permissible. However, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable against the order of framing the charge”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Tejasvi Verma appeared for the petitioner and Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
The appeal challenged the trial court’s order framing charges under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 3(2)(Va) of the Act.
At the outset, the Court questioned the maintainability of the appeal, noting that Section 14A permits appeals only against judgments, sentences, or orders that are not interlocutory in nature. The appellant argued that framing of charges is not an interlocutory order and therefore appealable.
The Court, rejecting this contention, relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s judgment in V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI 1980 (Supp.) SCC 92, which held that an order framing charges is an interlocutory order as it does not finally determine the rights of the parties and the trial continues thereafter.
While referring to Section 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979, which is pari materia to Section 14A of the SC & ST Act, 1989, the Bench observed, “…The phraseology used in Section 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979 also shows that an appeal shall lie as of right from any judgment, sentence or order, not being interlocutory order of Special Court. Since the provisions under the aforesaid Acts are similar with respect to a right available to a person to file an appeal, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla’s case (supra) is applicable in all four”.
It further clarified that the scheme of criminal procedure does not permit appeals against orders that merely advance the trial without conclusively adjudicating rights. Allowing such appeals would unnecessarily delay proceedings, which is contrary to the objective of expeditious trials.
Importantly, the Court noted that while an appeal is barred, the accused is not left remediless and may instead invoke revisional or inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under the law.
Referring to Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra 1977 (4) SCC 551 and Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another 2022 (15) SCC 720, further noted, “…the High Court can entertain the petition either filed under Sections 397 or 482 of the Cr.P.C., but it has not held that the order of framing of charge can be questioned by way of an appeal”.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, while granting liberty to the appellant to pursue other remedies available under law.
Cause Title: Lagnesh Verma v. State of H.P & others [Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:3474]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Tejasvi Verma, Advocate.
Respondent: Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.