An Order Framing Charges is an Interlocutory Order and Not Appealable Under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act

The appellants filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), challenging an order dated September 15, 2025, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria.

The impugned order framed charges against the appellants under Sections 427, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act.

The State and the complainant raised a preliminary objection, arguing that an order framing charges is an interlocutory order and is therefore barred from appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Act.

Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, which stipulates that an appeal lies to the High Court from any judgment, sentence, or order, provided it is "not being an interlocutory order".

The Supreme Court’s interpretation in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra (1979) and State Th. CBI v. Jitendra Kumar Singh (2014), which established that a trial begins with the framing of charges; prior proceedings are merely inquiries.

Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977) to define interlocutory orders as those of a purely interim nature that do not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.

V.C. Shukla v. State (1980), which explicitly held that framing of charge is an interlocutory order because the trial remains "alive" until conviction or acquittal.

The Court reasoned that an order is interlocutory if it does not terminate the proceedings or finally decide the rights of the parties.

Applying the precedents of the Apex Court, the Court noted that once charges are framed, the trial commences and the magistrate loses the power to discharge the accused; the proceedings must culminate in either acquittal or conviction.

Therefore, while the refusal to frame charges (resulting in discharge) would be a final order, the decision to frame charges and proceed with the trial constitutes an intermediate/interlocutory step in the judicial process.

Since Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act expressly excludes "interlocutory orders" from the ambit of appealable orders, the statutory bar applies.

The Court also referenced similar findings from the Himachal Pradesh High Court to reinforce that the proper remedy against such orders lies in revisional or inherent jurisdiction, not an appeal under the SC/ST Act.

Consequently, on the second issue, it held that the present criminal appeal is not maintainable under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellants liberty to seek other available legal remedies.