The Allahabad High Court has decided to refer the question of whether an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which challenges the entire legal proceedings of a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Act, can be considered valid, to a larger bench for further consideration.

A panel of Justice JJ Munir decided to refer the matter for review because they observed conflicting judgments within the High Court regarding the validity of an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC in cases involving the SC/ST Act.

The court observed a disparity in opinions between two Single Judges of the High Court where in the case of Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay and Others vs. State Of UP and Others, one  held a certain viewpoint, which conflicted with the opinion expressed by another in the case of Devendra Yadav And 7 Others vs. State of UP.

To provide further, in the case of Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay and Others, it was determined that an application under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be filed to challenge a summoning order issued by a Special Judge in a case related to offenses under the SC/ST Act. It was also determined that if the accused intends to challenge both the proceedings of the case, the charge sheet, and the summoning and cognizance orders, the appropriate legal remedy is to file an appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the same Act.

Conversely, in the Devendra Yadav case, it was established that an order summoning an accused for an offense under the SC/ST Act can indeed be challenged by submitting an application under Section 482 of the CrPC. 

Justice Rahul Chaturvedi's bench reached this decision by referencing the Supreme Court's judgments in the cases of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and B Venkateswaran vs P Bakthavatchalam. In these Supreme Court rulings, it was affirmed that criminal proceedings stemming from the SC/ST Act can indeed be quashed using the authority vested in Section 482 of the CrPC.

The need to refer the matter to a larger bench arose when Justice Munir's bench was handling a group of Section 482 CrPC petitions related to offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Act.

Justice Munir, while issuing the order, considered the conflicting judgments of the High Court and concluded that it would not be productive for him, as a single judge, to independently analyze the contradictory rationales provided by the Single Judges in those cases and offer his own perspective. This is because doing so might exacerbate the existing conflict and not provide a clear resolution. 

Justice Munir also pointed out that in addition to the potential for further exacerbating the conflict, expressing his individual opinion at that stage would go against the established principles of judicial discipline in such situations.

In light of these considerations, the court chose to withhold from making any comments and referred the following questions to a larger bench for a more comprehensive examination:

• Whether a challenge laid to the entire proceedings of a case under the SC/ST Act, without any challenge to any interlocutory order, such as a summoning order, would fall under the scope of the rule established in response to Question No. (III) by the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan vs. State of UP and others?

• Whether a challenge to proceedings under the SC/ST Act can be brought before this Court through an application under Section 482, especially in consideration of the principle established by the Full Bench in Ghulam Rasool Khan (supra), when not only the proceedings but also the orders of taking cognizance and summoning the applicant are contested?

It's worth noting that in the Ghulam Rasool Khan case, one of the key determinations was that an aggrieved person who has not utilized the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Act should not be permitted to approach the High Court by filing an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).