Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court

"Since there was appropriate provision for filing redress under the provision of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the petitioner, raising his grievances, so this present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS is not maintainable...," High Court of Tripura, in a significant ruling, held that an accused cannot invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to challenge an order framing charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A single-judge bench of Justice Biswajit Palit observed that the statute provides a specific remedy through an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, effectively barring the maintainability of a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The case originated from an FIR lodged by Smt. Jharna Debbarma, the Chairperson of the Women's Commission of Tripura and a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community. She alleged that the petitioner, a journalist named Saikat Talapatra, posted a video on a Facebook page with defamatory, sexually coloured, and caste-based remarks against her. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and a Special Judge in West Tripura framed charges against the petitioner under various sections of the IPC, the IT Act, and the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, the charge sheet, and the order framing the charges.

The primary question before the court was whether the present petition was maintainable under Section 482 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, in light of the specific appellate provisions under the SC/ST Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought, namely the quashing of the criminal proceedings and the order framing charges.

Statutory Bar on Inherent Jurisdiction

Addressing the maintainability of the petition, the High Court closely examined Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bench noted that this special statute expressly provides for an appeal to the High Court against any judgment, sentence, or order of a Special Court, provided it is not an interlocutory order.

"From the aforesaid provision, it appears that 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."

Order Framing Charge Is An Intermediate Order

The Court agreed with the preliminary objections raised by the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, who argued that an order framing charges is an intermediate order, not an interlocutory one. Relying on precedents from various High Courts, the State highlighted that because the order is intermediate, it is squarely appealable under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

Availability of Alternate Remedy Precludes Quashing

Justice Palit emphasised that the existence of a specific statutory remedy restricts the High Court from exercising its inherent powers. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., which clarified that an aggrieved person who has not availed the remedy of an appeal under Section 14A cannot bypass it by filing an application under Section 482 CrPC.

"As such, there is no such scope on the part of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where there was specific remedy available to the present petitioner."

"Thus, it appears that not only against a judgment, sentence, even against an order, there is scope for filing appeal under the aforesaid provision of Section 14A of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989."

Petitioner's Citations Found Distinguishable

The petitioner's counsel had relied upon several Supreme Court judgments, including Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, arguing that the High Court could quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law. However, the High Court rejected this argument, observing that those precedents primarily dealt with private land disputes or situations where the caste of the victim was not the foundation of the offence.

Strict Adherence to Statutory Procedures

The High Court concluded that since the petitioner was facing charges framed by a Special Court under the SC/ST Act, the correct procedural route was to file a statutory appeal. The bench firmly shut the door on using inherent powers when a specialized legislative framework dictates the appellate process.

"Since there was appropriate provision for filing redress under the provision of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the petitioner, raising his grievances, so this present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS is not maintainable."

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition, holding it entirely unmaintainable under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). However, the court left it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application, including an appeal against the order framing charges, in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026