The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that when a Special Court takes cognizance of an offence or frames charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved party must pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 14A of the Act rather than filing a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by Sandeep Kumar Arora, who had challenged orders through which cognizance was taken against him and charges were framed in a criminal case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged orders dated August 11, 2023 and October 25, 2023 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-II. The trial court had taken cognizance against him and subsequently framed charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the SC/ST Act.
At the outset, counsel appearing for the complainant objected to the maintainability of the petition. It was argued that the impugned orders were appealable under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act and therefore the petition itself was not maintainable.
Court’s Observations
After examining the record, the High Court noted that both the order taking cognizance and the order framing charges had already been passed by the Special Court. The Court observed that Section 14A of the SC/ST Act provides a statutory right of appeal against any judgment, sentence, or order of the Special Court that is not merely interlocutory in nature.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, the High Court noted that an order framing charges is not an interlocutory order and can therefore be challenged through an appeal under Section 14A of the Act.
Justice Dhand observed:
“The order of taking cognizance of offence and order of framing of charge are not interlocutory order and these orders are final in nature. Hence, appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989 is maintainable against the same.”
The Court further emphasized that where a statute specifically provides an appellate remedy, a litigant cannot bypass that mechanism by invoking the High Court's jurisdiction through a miscellaneous petition.
As the bench put it:
“If a statute provides for filing an appeal, then a person cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the appellate authority by way of filing a miscellaneous petition.”
Decision
Holding that the statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the criminal miscellaneous petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act.
The Court also observed that if an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is filed, it shall be considered in accordance with law.
All pending applications, including the stay application, were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Arora v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2757/2024
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: 26 May 2026
Source: Rajasthan High Court Order
