Single-judge order dismissing a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as not maintainable, allowing a writ challenge.
Application declared not maintainable and disposed of. Liberty granted to challenge the order via Section 14-A.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.51670 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2017 Thana -SC/ST District- SASARAM (ROHTAS)
====================================================== Madan Choubey S/o Late Matukdhari Choubey, resident of villageFazalganj, P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 16-07-2018 In view of the provisions prescribed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the instant application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1st -cum-Special Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Dehri SC/ST P. S. Case No.09 of 2017 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51670 of 2017 (2) dt.16-07-2018
2/2
maintainable. Accordingly, it is disposed of as not maintainable.
The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order impugned in terms of the provisions prescribed under Section 14-A of the aforestated Act.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Kanchan/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a magistrate's order taken under Section 14-A of the POTA is maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Madan Choubey
The State of Bihar
Dulat Chand Ram
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
