HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6349 of 2025 Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
Heard Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
1.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order dated 05- 05-2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in Special Case No. 1338 of 2023, whereby charges have been framed against the appellants.
2.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that an order framing charge is an interlocutory order and, therefore, in view of Section 14-A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act, the present appeal is not maintainable.
3.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order framing charge substantially affects the rights of the accused and, therefore, cannot be treated as an interlocutory order.
4.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5.
Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajeet Kumar, Sujan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ramesh Kumar Mishra Gaya Prasad And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
1
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I. reported in 1980 Supp SCC 92, has held that an order framing charge is an interlocutory order, as it does not terminate the proceedings and the trial continues till acquittal or conviction. Similar view has been taken in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (1979) 2 SCC 179, wherein it has been held that once charges are framed, the Court has no power to discharge the accused and the trial must proceed to its logical end. The said principle has further been reiterated in Bharat Parikh Vs. C.B.I. and Another reported in (2008) 10 SCC 109 and State through CBI, New Delhi Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh reported in (2014) 11 SCC 724. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137 has explained the scope of interlocutory orders and held that such orders are those which do not finally determine the rights of the parties.
6.
Section 14-A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act specifically provides that an appeal shall lie against any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order.
7.
In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05-05-2025 framing charge is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act is not maintainable.
8.
Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
9.
May 20, 2026
pks CRLA No. 6349 of 2025
2
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
2