TRHC010009782026 2026:THC:948

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl. Petn. No.47 of 2026

Sri Saikat Talapatra,

Age 38 years,

S/o: Lt. Ranjit Kumar Talapatra,

Resident of A.D. Nagar, Road No.6,

P.O. & P.S.: A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

District: West Tripura, PIN: 799003.

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura,

(To be represented by the L’d Public Prosecutor,

Hon’ble High Court of Tripura)

----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

Date of hearing : 15.07.2026

Date of delivery of

Judgment & Order : 21.07.2026

Whether fit for

reporting : YES

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS seeking

the following relief/reliefs:

“(i) Admit the instant application lodged under

Section-528 of BNSS corresponding to 482 of Cr.P.C.

(ii) Stay the oper ation of the Order, dated,

15.01.2026, passed by the L’D Special Judge, West

Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Special (SC ST

Atrocities) 02 of 2025.

(iii) Issue notice upon the Respondents.

(iv) Call for records.

(v) Hear the both sides.

(vi) Allow the in stant application by invoking

inherent power under Section -528 of BNSS

corresponding to 482 of Cr.P.C. by quashing and

setting aside the-

Page 2 of 19

(a) West Agartala P.S. Case No. 2023

WAG 185, dated, 06.10.2023, U/S

354.A/354D/500/505/506/509 of IPC

and 67 of the IT Ac t & Section 3(1)(v),

3(1)(u), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(va) of SC ST

(POA) Act, 1989.

(b) Order, dated, 15.01.2026, passed by

the L’D Special Judge, West Tripura,

Agartala in Case No. Special (SC ST

Atrocities) 02 of 2025.

(vii) Pass any further order/orders as thi s Hon’ble

High Court considered fit and proper.

And

For this act of kindness, your humble Petitioner as

in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy

Barman assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee

appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Learned P.P., Mr.

Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Since, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State -

respondent, at the very outset, raised the question regarding

maintainability of the present petition, this Court feels it prudent to

frame the following points for decision of this present criminal petition:

i. Whether the present petition is maintainable

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to

Section 528 of BNSS?

ii. Whether the present petitioner is entitled to

the relief/reliefs as prayed for?

4. Taking part in the hearing, Learned P.P. submitted that by

filing the present petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the

West Agartala PS Case No. 2023 WAG 185 as w ell as the order dated

15.01.2026 passed by Learned Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala

in case No.Special (SC ST Atrocities) 2 of 2025.

Learned P.P., first of all drawn the attention of this Court

to the contents of the FIR and submitted that in this case, the FIR was

laid by one Smt. Jharna Debbarma , being a woman belonging to ST

Page 3 of 19

community. Learned P.P. further submitted that there were sufficient

materials against the present petitioner-accused and accordingly, the

case was registered and the I.O. after completion of investigation, has

rightly filed charge sheet against him. It was further submitted that by

this time, by order dated 15.01.2026, the Learned Special Court has

framed charge against the petitioner-accused in custody and the case

was posted for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Further, referring the provision of Section 14A of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, [for short, SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989]

Learned P.P. submitted that in this case, it was the duty of the

petitioner-accused to file appeal, but the petitioner without

approaching this court by filing an appeal has filed the petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS. So, in

view of the specific bar provided under Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section

14A of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the present

petition is liable to be dismissed henceforth.

In support of this contention, Learned P.P. relied upon one

citation of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLA No.408 of 2022

[titled as Smrutikant Rath & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.] wherein in

para Nos.11 and 12, the High Court of Orissa observed as under:

“11. In view of the aforesaid analysis of law, this

Court has no hesitation to hold that the order taking

cognizance and issuing summons to the accused

person is not clearly an interlocutory order, but an

intermediate order. Therefore, the same is

appealable in view of the provisions contained under

Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act.

12. So far ouster of jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482, Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court does

not agree with such a proposition of law. The power

conferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is inherent

power. The refore, the same by no stretch of

imagination can be construed that the same is to be

guided and controlled by the provisions of any

statute. While saying so, this Court is also aware of

the proposition of law that when a statute provides

Page 4 of 19

for a specific remedy i.e. when an alternative

remedy is provided the parties are required to

exhaust the said remedy first. In the present case

under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act

provides for a statutory appeal against the order

passed by the learned Spe cial Court, which is not

interlocutory in nature. Since the impugned order

passed in the present case is an intermediate order

and not an interlocutory order, this Court is of the

considered view that the same is appealable under

Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act.”

Referring the same, Learned P.P. submitted that since

without preferring any appeal, challenging the order regarding framing

of charge and quashing of proceeding as well as the FIR, the petitioner

has approached this Court seeking redress under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., so, in view of the statutory bar, this present petition is liable

to be dismissed henceforth.

Learned P.P. further referred another judgment of the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Shivam Kashyap vs. Stat e of

U.P. thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. & Anr.

dated 13.02.2024, wherein in para Nos.2, 11, 14 and 15, the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad observed as under:

“2. By means of the instant application filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged

validity of the charge-sheet dated 12.10.2023 and

the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.3088 of

2023, arising out of Case Crime No.385 of 2023,

under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C. & Section 3

(2) 5 of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at

Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow,

pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act,

Lucknow.

11. Although the questions have been referred to a

larger Bench by means of an order dated 20.09.2023

passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court at

Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No. 8635

of 2023 and other connected matters, the decision

in Ghulam Rasool Khan (Supra) will hold good till a

decision is taken by a larger Bench. In this regard, a

reference to the following passage from ju dgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of

Ladakh v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference ,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140 will be appropriate: -

"35. We are seeing before us judgments

and orders by High Courts not deciding

cases on the ground that the leading

judgment of this Court on this subject is

either referred to a larger Bench or a

review petition relating thereto is pending.

Page 5 of 19

We have also come across examples of

High Courts refusing defe rence to

judgments of this Court on the score that a

later Coordinate Bench has doubted its

correctness. In this regard, we lay down

the position in law. We make it absolutely

clear that the High Courts will proceed to

decide matters on the basis of the la w as it

stands. It is not open, unless specifically

directed by this Court, to await an outcome

of a reference or a review petition, as the

case may be. It is also not open to a High

Court to refuse to follow a judgment by

stating that it has been doubted by a later

Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced

with conflicting judgments by Benches of

equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier

one which is to be followed by the High

Courts, as held by a 5 -

Judge Bench in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)

16 SCC 680. The High Courts, of course, will

do so with careful regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case before it."

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the law on

the point stands clarified by two Full Benches, that

inherent powers of this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in cases and situations

where an appeal would lie under Section 14A and

aggrieved person having remedy of appeal under

Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to

invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482 Cr. P.C.

15. Accordingly, as the applicant has the remedy of

filing an appeal under Section 14 -A available to him,

he cannot invoke the inherent powers of this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed for this reason,

leaving it open to the applicant to file an appeal

under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the

Scheduled Tribes (Preve ntion of Atrocities) Act,

1989.”

Referring the same, Learned P.P. submitted that

considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this

petition is liable to be dismissed henceforth as the same is not

maintainable under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Finally, Learned P.P. referred another citation of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. v. State of

U.P. & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 975 , wherein in para

No.11, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

“11. Thus the answer to Question No. (II) will be in

negative. An aggrieved person will not have two

remedies namely, i.e. filing an appeal under Section

Page 6 of 19

14A of the 1989 Act as well as filing a bail

application in terms of Section 439 Cr. P.C.

Question No. (III)

Whether an aggrieved person who has not availed of

the remedy of an appeal under the provisions of

Section 14 A of Act, 1989 can be allowed to

approach the High Court by preferring an application

under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.? ”

Referring the same, Learned P.P. submitted that since

there was specific provision for filing appeal under Section 14A of the

SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as such, the present

petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in view of

the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforenoted

case.

5. Countering the submission made by Learned P.P., Learned

Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submitted that firstly, in this case, in course of

investigation, the I.O. could not take any initiative to ascertain as to

whether the petitioner-accused in custody is a person belonging to

SC/ST community or not? Secondly, Learned Senior Counsel submitted

that from the contents of the FIR it is clear that no case under SC ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been made out. However, without

proper evidence, the I.O. in this case has laid charge-sheet against the

petitioner-accused quoting some provisions of the IPC which are not at

all maintainable against the petitioner -accused in custody.

Furthermore, from the contents of the FIR and also from the charge -

sheet, no materials could be collected by the I.O. to sustain the charge

leveled against the petitioner under any of the provisions of IPC and

also under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(w)(ii) o f the SC ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As such, as referred by Learned

P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent, Section 14A of the

SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be applied in this

Page 7 of 19

case. Rather, this is a fit case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contention, also

submitted that there are series of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has very specifically

observed that in case of abuse of the process of the Court, there is

scope for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS.

In this regard, Learned Senior Counsel relied upon one

citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hitesh Verma v.

State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 ,

wherein in para Nos.2, 5, 8, 15, 17 and 23, Hon'ble the Apex Court

observed as under:

“2. FIR No. 173 in question was lodged by

Respondent 2 o n 11-12-2019 at 23 : 24 hours in

respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on

10-12-2019 at 10 : 00 hours against the appellants

and others. The FIR was lodged for the offences

under Sections 452, 504, 506 of the Penal Code,

1860 and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”). The

said FIR, when translated, reads as under:

“Respected SHO with respect of registering

of FIR, the complainant is presently resident

of Gram New Bajeti Patti Chandak Tehsil &

District Pithoragarh. I am constructing my

house on my Khet No. 6195, 6196 & 6199

but Banshilal, Pyarelal s/o late Har Lal,

Hitesh Verma s/o Sh. Pyarelal, Pawan Verma

s/o Banshilal, Uma Verma w/o Pyarelal and

their Nepali domestic help Raju from past 6

months are not allowing the applicant to

work on her fields. All the above persons

used to abuse the applicant, her husband

and other family members and use to give

death threats and use caste -coloured

abuses. On 10 -12-2019 at around 10 a.m.,

all these persons entered illegally into four

walls of her building and started hurling

abuses on myself and my labourers and gave

death threats and used castes'

remarks/abuses and took away the

construction material such as cement, iron,

rod, bricks. The applicant is a Scheduled

Caste and all of the above person uses

castes' remarks/abuses (used bad

language) and said that you are persons of

Page 8 of 19

bad caste and that we will not let you live in

this mohalla/vicinity. Respect Sir, the

applicant and her family has threat to her

life from such persons. Thus, it is requested

that an FIR may be lodged against such

persons and necessary action may be taken

against them….”

5. The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High

Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of the

Code to challenge the charge -sheet and the order

taking cognizance. The appellant relied upon Gorige

Pentaiah v. State of A.P. [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of

A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446]

wherein the allegation w as of abusing the

complainant in the name of their caste and this

Court quashed the complaint. The attention of the

High Court was drawn to another judgment reported

as Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of

Maharashtra [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State

of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 : (2009) 2 SCC

(Cri) 20] wherein this Court refused to quash the

FIR on the ground that the caste of the accused was

not mentioned in the first information report. The

High Court found that both the abovementioned

cases dealt with the same issue with regard to

applicability of the provisions of the Act. It was

observed by the High Court that the appellant had

categorically admitted that the informant belonged

to Scheduled Caste and that she and her labourers

were abused. Th erefore, the provisions of the Act

were found to be applicable and accordingly, after

investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. The

High Court dismissed the petition with the aforesaid

findings.

8. Against the backdrop of these facts, it is pertinen t

to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of

enactment of the Act. It is provided as under:

“Statement of Objects and Reasons. —

Despite various measures to improve the

socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the y

remain vulnerable. They are denied number

of civil rights. They are subjected to various

offences, indignities, humiliations and

harassment. They have, in several brutal

incidents, been deprived of their life and

property. Serious crimes are committed

against them for various historical, social

and economic reasons.

2. Because of the awareness created

amongst the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes through spread of

education, etc. they are trying to assert their

rights and this is not being taken very kindly

by the others. When they assert their rights

and resist practices of untouchability against

them or demand statutory minimum wages

or refuse to do any bonded and forced

labour, the vested interests try to cow them

down and terrorise them. When the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

try to preserve their self-respect or honour

of their women, they become irritants for the

dominant and the mighty. Occupation and

cultivation of even the Government allotted

Page 9 of 19

land by the Scheduled Castes and th e

Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often

these people become victims of attacks by

the vested interests. Of late, there has been

an increase in the disturbing trend of

commission of certain atrocities like making

the Scheduled Castes persons eat inedi ble

substances like human excreta and attacks

on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of

women belonging to the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the

circumstances, the existing laws like the

Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the

normal provisions of the Penal Code, 1860

have been found to be inadequate to check

these crimes. A special legislation to check

and deter crimes against them committed by

non-Scheduled Castes and non -Scheduled

Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.”

15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the

informant were within the four walls of her building.

It is not the case of the informant that there was

any member of the public (not merely relatives or

friends) at the time of the incident in the house.

Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were

uttered “in any place within public view” is not

made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the

charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it

could not be sai d that those were the persons

present within the four walls of the building. The

offence is alleged to have taken place within the

four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the

judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran

Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC

(Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within

public view as none was said to be present within

the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or

charge-sheet.

17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh

v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P.,

(2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104] ,

this Court held that in a case for applicability of

Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the

deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be

enough to inflict enhance d punishment. This Court

held that there was nothing to suggest that the

offence was committed by the appellant only

because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste.

The Court held as under:

“15. As held by the Supreme Court, the

offence must be such so a s to attract the

offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The

offence must have been committed against

the person on the ground that such person is

a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the

deceased was belong ing to “Khangar”

Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no

evidence to show that the offence was

committed only on the ground that the

victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste

and therefore, the conviction of the

appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v ) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

Page 10 of 19

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not

sustainable.”

23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar

Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v.

State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC

(Cri) 818] held that there is no prohibition under the

law for quashing the charge -sheet in part. In a

petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the

High Court is required to examine as to whether its

intervention is required for prevention of abuse of

process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618, para

9)

“9. Having regard to the settled legal

position on external interference in

investigation and the specific facts of this

case, we are of the view that the High Court

ought to have exercised its jurisdiction

under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of

justice. There is no prohibition under law for

quashing a charge -sheet in part. A person

may be accused of several offences under

different penal statutes, as in the instant

case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution

only on a particular charge or charges, on

any ground available to him in law. Under

Section 482, all that the High Court is

required to examine is whether its

intervention is required for implement ing

orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or

for prevention of abuse of process, or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A

charge-sheet filed at the dictate of

somebody other than the police would

amount to abuse of the process of law and

hence the High Court ought to have

exercised its inherent powers under Section

482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no

requirement that the charge -sheet has to be

quashed as a whole and not in part.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The

supplementary report f iled by the police, at

the direction of the Commission, is

quashed.”

Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon another citation of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramawatar vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, wherein in para

Nos.3, 16, 17 and 20.2, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

“3. The investigation commenced in light of the

aforestated facts. Upon collection of substantial

evidence, the appellant and co -accused were

committed to trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the

SC/ST Act read with Section 34IPC.

16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising

out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the

Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach.

The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter

acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment

against members of Scheduled Castes and

Page 11 of 19

Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of

the depressing reality that despite undertaking

several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled

Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities

at the hands of upper castes. The courts have to be

mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted

keeping in view the express constitutional

safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of

the Constitution, with a twin -fold objective of

protecting the members of these vulnerable

communities as well as to provide relief and

rehabilitation to the victims of caste -based

atrocities.

17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court

that the offence in question, although covered un der

the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature,

or where the alleged offence has not been

committed on account of the caste of the victim, or

where the continuation of the legal proceedings

would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court

can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.

On similar lines, when considering a prayer for

quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement,

if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective

of the Act would not be contravened or diminished

even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the

mere fact that the offence is covered under a

“special statute” would not refrain this Court or the

High Court, from exercising their respective powers

under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section

482CrPC.

20.2.Secondly, the offence in question, for which the

appellant has been convicted, does not appear to

exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST

Act is to protect members of the downtrodden

classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of

the society. It appears to us that although the

appellant may not belong to the same caste as the

complainant, he too belongs to the relatively

weaker/backward section of the society and is

certainly not in any better economic or social

position when compared to the victim. Despite the

rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian

villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to

restrict their quarters only to certain areas, it is

seen that in the present case, the appel lant and the

complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore,

keeping in mind the socio -economic status of the

appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding

objective of the SC/ST Act would not be

overwhelmed if the present proceedings are

quashed.”

Further, reliance was placed upon another citation of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B. Venkateswaran & Ors. v. P.

Bakthavatchalam reported in (2023) 11 SCC 182, wherein in para

Nos.1 and 8, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

“M.R. Shah, J.— Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied

with the impugned judgment and order [B.

Page 12 of 19

Venkatesan v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2020 SCC OnLine

Mad 28089] passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Madras in Criminal (OP) No. 33505 of 2019, by

which, the High Court ha s dismissed the said

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and has refused to quash the criminal

proceedings initiated by the private respondent

herein, initiated against the petitioners for the

offence under Sections 3(2)(v) and (va ) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the accused

have preferred the present appeal.

8. It appears that thereafter the complainant filed

another Writ Petition No. 30326 of 2013 before the

Madras High Cour t. The High Court directed [P.

Bakthavatsalam v. Commr., WP No. 30326 of 2013,

order dated 23 -6-2014 (Mad)] the official

respondent to proceed with the inquiry against both

the parties. At this stage, it is required to be noted

that it was the case on behalf of the original accused

that in fact the complainant had violated all building

norms and had constructed a building in blatant

violation of the setback rules and had also put up

unauthorised construction on the ground floor and

first floor. That thereafter, the Temple filed writ

petition being No. 3322 of 2017 before the High

Court. The Division Bench of the High Court vide

order dated 10-2-2017 [Arulmigu Sundharamoorthy

v. State of T.N., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37917]

stayed the proceedings against the temp le. It

appears that thereafter the complainant filed a

private complaint for the aforesaid offences under

the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.”

Referring the aforesaid citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of the observation

made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, there is no bar

to file petition for quashing of proceedings invoking the jurisdiction of

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., since no material against the petitioner

under the relevant provision of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 has been revealed. As such, this present petition filed by the

petitioner is very much maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel further

submitted that the submissions advanced by Learned P.P. cannot be

accepted and urged for quashing of the proceeding.

Finally, Learned Senior Counsel, in respect of application of

Section 18/18A of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also

relied upon another citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Page 13 of 19

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors., reported (2020) 4

SCC 727, wherein in para Nos.11 and 12, Hon'ble the Apex Court

observed as under:

“11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of

Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases

under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does

not make out a prima facie case for applicability of

the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by

Sections 18 and 18 -A(i) shall not apply. We have

clarified this aspect while deciding the review

petitions.

12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise

power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the

cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled

parameters, as already observed while deciding the

review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no

argument to the contrary has been raised. ”

Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that

the aforesaid observation also may be applied in this case.

6. In the second phase of argument, Learned Senior Counsel

further referred the contents of the FIR as well as the charge framed

by Learned Trial Court by order dated 15.01.2026, and submitted that

on the face of the materials on record there was no material found

against the present petitioner to frame charge under Section 354A,

354D, 500, 505(1)(c), 505(2), 506 and 509 of IPC as well as the

provision of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. As such, the charge framed by the Learned Trial

Court suffers from infirmities and the same needs to be interfered

with. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if the contents of

FIR is examined meticulously in that case, it will transpire that none of

the aforesaid provisions of law are attracted in the present case. So,

Learned Senior Counsel urged for quashing the order dated

15.01.2026 as well as the charge framed by the Learned Special Judge

and also the entire proceeding drawn up against the present

petitioner, exercising the jurisdiction provided under Section 482 of

Page 14 of 19

Cr.P.C. in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as stated above.

7. Considered.

8. Now, let us discuss hereinbelow the contents of the FIR.

The FIR was submitted by one Smt. Jharna Debbarma to O/C, West

Agartala PS on 06.10.2023. The contents of the FIR are reproduced

hereinbelow:

The Officer In-Charge

West Agartala Police Station

Sub: Information about commission of a grave

offence against me- an ST woman .

Sir,

I, Smti. Jharna Debbarma, Chairperson of Women's

Commission, Tripura, under excruciating pain,

brings to your notice by this instant report

regarding the commission of a crime against an ST

woman. The State of Tripura, where crime against

women specially crime or atrocity against Schedule

Tribe women is a desolate episode and therefore

such an episode can not allowed to be perpetuate,

specially when the victim is the Chairperson of

Women's Commission herself. It is a conscience

shocking act / crime perpetrated by one Saikat

Talapatra, who claims h imself to be a journalist. The

agony so inflicted by that man, over me and my

family, is briming over and this compelles me to

gripe against the offence committed by the said

person.

On 28/09/2023, I was informed by some of my

relatives, well-wishers and supporters that a very

disturbing and objectionable post has been made in

the facebook page namely "Independent". I have

come to know that this said page is being managed

and run by one Saikat Talapatra. I do not know

Saikat Talapatra, personally or profes sionally and I

have never met him. The said person in his managed

Facebook page namely "Independent", posted my

video, along with brazen, distasteful, reprehensible

and sexually coloured comments/ remarks/

voiceover against me (URL

https://fb.watch/nvol5vG RC_/). The video which

he has posted has been captured by him from my

facebook page, where I had uploaded the said video.

The comment or remark mentioned above are as

follows:

The comments have been written in Bengali, but

here I am reproducing the transl iteration of the

Bengali version of the comment:

"6 lakhe bikri holo mohila commission er chairman

er pod. Bam netar girl friend ajj charirman."

Page 15 of 19

The said comment has been made public and by

doing that my reputation, dignity, modesty,

character & integrity have been badly attacked and

assaulted.

I am respectable married lady holding a very

respectable post of the State, as the Chairperson of

Women's Commission, whose fundamental purpose

is to act in ameliorating the pain and suffering of

women. This braze n act is not only a blow on my

reputation, but it is a huge question mark on the

fate, security and modesty of women, assaulted by

one Saikat Talapatra.

The said person by using computer resource or

communication device has transmitted a message

which consists of sexually coloured remarks with a

motive to indicate a grossly offensive meaning, to

insult, annoy, to sustain injury to raze my reputation

in front of general public. A glance over the entire

post/message/communication so sent by the said

person has made clear the foul smell of the author's

filthy intentions with ill will against me which has

hurt, injured, terribly insulted, defamed and

intimidated me besides outraging my modesty as an

ST woman.

The said video which has been used along with the

comment by the said person namely Saikat

Talapatra, is a video which has been posted by me in

my Facebook page. Therefore, since the same video

has been used by the said person illegally and

unauthorizedly, it becomes pellucid and leaves no

room for confusion, that the said person has been

stalking me continuously.

I had taken charge as Chairperson of Women's

Commission on 26/09/2023 and after I took charge,

I found that considerable number of complaints

have been lodged against this man and so I decided

to proceed to deal with these complaints legally.

Now, I have strong feeling that these sort of posts

in social media are directed towards stopping me

from proceeding with these complaints against that

person. Coming across all these, I was in utter

consternation. Since, the day of that objectionable

post, I have been confronting with very

embarrassing questions, that I being the

Chairperson of Women's Commission what action

did I take?. My family has been constantly

supporting me and finding situation to be

unendurable, I have decided to set the law in

motion by filing this report. I have also come to

know that this man uses the aforesaid technique to

extort money from the victim by putting them into

fear of injury to reputation, through himself and his

accomplices and therefore I have strongly believe

that his intentions were same here also. He

intentionally targeted me as I am an ST woman.

I therefore would request you kindly take action

against this person under appropriate sections of

IPC, IT Act and The SC and the ST (POA) Act, 1989

and he should be brought to justice, and for that

purpose all necessary tools and aids may be used.

With such envision, this may mark a cession of this

report but not the crime committed by that

Page 16 of 19

perpetrator, until and unless, he is brought to

justice.

Yours Faithfully

Smti. Jharna Debbarma

Chairperson,

Women’s Commission Tripura ”

On the basis of the FIR, West Agartala PS case No.2023

WAG 185 under Sections 354A, 354D, 500, 505, 506, 509 of IPC and

Section 67 of IT Act, and also under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(u),

3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(1)(va) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

was registered.

9. In this case, as already stated, charge -sheet was

submitted by the I.O. against the petitioner-accused, and on the basis

of materials on record, Learned Special Judge, vide order dated

15.01.2026, framed charge against the petitioner -accused under

Sections 354A, 354D, 500, 505(1)(c), 505(2), 506, 509 of IPC, 67 of

IT Act, and Sections 3(1)(r)(u)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By filing the present petition, the

petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the

Learned Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, as well as the FIR and

the charge-sheet submitted by I.O. against the petitioner.

Now, for the sake of conve nience, let us reproduce

hereinbelow the provision of Section 14A of SC ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989:

“14A. Appeals. —(1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2

of 1974), 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -

section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to

the High Court against an order of the Special Court

or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing

bail.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any

other law for the time being inforce, every appeal

under this section shall be preferred within a period

Page 17 of 19

of ninety days from the date of the judgment,

sentence or order appealed from:

Provided that the High Court may entertain an

appeal after the expiry of the said peri od of ninety

days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient

cause for not preferring the appeal within the period

of ninety days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained

after the expiry of the period of one hundred and

eighty days.

(4) Every appeal preferred under sub -section (1)

shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a

period of three months from the d ate of admission

of the appeal.”

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. 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.

10. Here, in the case at hand, the evidence of the prosecution

is not yet been recorded, but it is the admitted position that in this

case, the I.O. laid charge sheet against the petitioner-accused not only

under the provisions of IPC, rather, also under the provisions of SC ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is also the admitted position

that here in the case at hand, the informant who laid the FIR is a

woman belonging to ST community. It is not the case of the petitioner-

accused that he is a person belonging to SC or ST community and no

such plea in this regard has been taken on his behalf before this Court.

Furthermore, by this time, the Learned Trial Court has framed charge

against the accused which is not an interlocutory order rather it is an

intermediate order. The present petitioner, in this case, has not only

challenged the FIR and the charge-sheet, but also the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 15.01.2026 by which charge was framed

Page 18 of 19

against him by the Learned Trial Court. 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 t o the present

petitioner.

The citations referred by Learned Senior Counsel are

distinguishable in facts because after going through the aforesaid

citations, it appears that the disputes arose between the rival parties

were land disputes which were ultim ately culminated to criminal

prosecution. So, as the facts of those citations are different from the

facts of the present case, I find no scope to apply the principles of

those citations in deciding the present petition.

Rather, the citations referred by State-respondent

appears to be more significant, and it appears to this Court that the

present petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Section 14A of

the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was the

appropriate remedy for the petitio ner in the given facts and

circumstances of the case. As such, the aforesaid point No.1 is decided

against the petitioner.

Since the point No.1 is decided against the petitioner so, at

this stage, the discussion in respect of the other issues regarding

applicability of the relevant provisions of the IPC and the SC ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act appears to be redundant to this Court for

further discussions and decision.

11. Accordingly, both the points are decided in negative

against the present petitioner. 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

Page 19 of 19

528 of BNSS is not maintainable and accordingly, the same stands

dismissed leaving the petitioner right to move appropriate application

in accordance with law, including the order of framing of charge.

With this observation, the present criminal petition stands

dismissed.

Registrar (Judicial) be asked to circulate a copy of this

judgment and order to all the Courts across the State. Also, s end a

copy of this judgment and order to the Learned Trial Court for

information.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Snigdha