Rishu Shukla Alias Santosh Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1706 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2320 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Rishu Shukla Alias Santosh Shukla
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Saksham Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard Learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''SC/ST Act') against the order dated 14.02.2022, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra in S.S.T. No. 144 of 2020 arising out of case crime no. 232 of 2019, (State v. Suraj Pandey And Others), under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, police station Chopan, district Sonbhadra, whereby, non-bailable warrants have been issued against the appellant.

Perusal of record shows that by impugned order dated 14.02.2022, as the accused/appellant was present before the court, thus, the court below has issued non-bailable warrants against him.

At this stage it may be mentioned that this appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST Act, which reads as under:-

"14A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law."

From the above-stated provision it is apparent that an appeal under this section is not maintainable against an interlocutory order. In the instant matter, the impugned order, by which non-bailable warrants have been issued, is purely an interlocutory order. Here it may be observed that in the case of Hira Lal v. State of U.P. And Anr., 2008 CRI. L.J. 113, this Court held that:-

"So far as the impugned order dated 24/28-10-2003 issuing non-bailable warrants against the accused persons named in the charge sheet is concerned, revision against that order is not maintainable, because the order issuing non- bailable warrant comes in the category "interlocutory order" within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. This Court in the case of Mohd. Usman v. State of U.P. (2000 (40) ACC 901), has held that issuing of non bailable warrant is purely interlocutory order, revision against which is not maintainable."..

Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Shahabuddin v. State (Criminal revision No. 2866 of 2013, decided on 23.01.2014.

In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the present appeal under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST Act against the impugned order, which is interlocutory in nature, is not maintainable and hence, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Order Date :- 28.4.2022

Anand