Proceedings In SC-ST Act Can Be Quashed U/S 482 CrPC If There Is Abuse Of Process Of Law: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court observed that proceedings in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if there is abuse of process of law.
The Court was considering an application against single-bench order wherein it was held that an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for the quashing of the entire proceedings of a particular Sessions Trial which included the offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of section 14-A of the SC/ST Act.
The division-bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed, "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 Applicant was represented by Advocate Jayant Kumar while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Government Advocate.
In another such case, another single-bench had held that even if the statutory appeal under section 14-A of the SC/ST Act was available, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. could be entertained keeping in view the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ramawatar (supra) and B.Venkateswaran & Ors. v. P. Bakthavatchalm reported in AIR 2023 SC 262.
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the judgment of Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra) was passed on 28.7.2022 and that it had not taken into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) dated 5.9.2020; Ram Gopal (supra) dated 21.9.2021 and Ramawatar (supra) dated 25.10.2021. He further submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Venkateswaran (supra) dated 5.1.2023 has categorically held that the complaints for the offences under section 3(i)(v) and (v)(a) of the SC/ST Act including the summons issued by the learned Special Court could be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court. He also also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2023 SC (Criminal) 966 decided on 10.5.2023 and submitted that if there was a miscarriage of justice by the filing of a case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act then the High Court could use its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. or even under the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and this would also mean that the High Court has powers to quash the charge sheet and the order of cognizance in the case therein.
He thus averred that where the entire proceedings under the SC/ST Act are to be quashed, the same can be so done under the inherent powers of the High Court i.e. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under section 482 Cr.P.C. He also submitted, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Venkateswara (supra), that all interlocutory orders, including summoning orders, etc., etc., could be looked into by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction.
Citing Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra),, he submitted that whether a person aggrieved by orders under the SC/ST Act has not availed the remedy of appeal, could be allowed to approach the High Court by preferring an application under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.c., has been answered by saying that a person who could, under section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, file an appeal and if he has not so done then he should not avail the remedy of filing any application for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. He, however, submitted that definitely, the provisions contained in section 14-A of the SC/ST Act did not oust the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court if the remedy as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra); Ram Gopal (supra); Ramawatar (supra), B. Venakateswaran (supra) and Gulam Mustafa (supra) under 482 Cr.P.C. are available to the applicant.
The Court at the outset noted that in the instant case, the Question that has been posed before this Bench is as to whether when there was a challenge led to the entire proceedings of the case under the provisions of SC/ST Act with no challenge to any interlocutory order i.e. the summoning order then would the law as had been laid down by the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra) prevent the aggrieved person from approaching the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C and the same is absolutely different tenor from Question no.III, which the Full Bench answered in Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra).
"...what needs to be understood is that there has to be a distinction between a proceeding being "not maintainable" and "not liable to be entertained". "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," the Court observed.
The Court concluded that there can be no hard and fast rule regarding the interference of the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court can if it finds that by interfering in a particular case, it can prevent the misuse or abuse of the Court or law, then it may always so interfere.
"...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 to secure the end of justice. High Courts are not merely Courts of law but also Courts of Justice, and as such, they possess inherent powers to remove injustice," the Court observed.
The Applications were accordingly disposed off.
Cause Title: Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of U.P. and Another
Click here to read/ download Judgement: