Allahabad High Court
URMILA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The appeal is not maintainable because the order directing the lodging of a FIR is an interlocutory order.
Summary
Urmila Devi appealed to the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash an order dated 17 April 2025 of the Special Judge that directed the police to lodge a First Information Report under Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The State raised a preliminary objection that the order was interlocutory and, therefore, an appeal under Section 14‑A(1) of the SC/ST Act was not maintainable. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s definition of an interlocutory order, noting that such orders are purely interim and do not affect the substantive rights of the parties. It held that the order directing the FIR was indeed interlocutory. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing the police to lodge a FIR under Section 173(4) CrPC is an interlocutory order for the purposes of Section 14‑A(1) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether a criminal appeal under Section 14‑A(1) of the SC/ST Act is maintainable against an interlocutory order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 173(4)
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(1)
Subjects
- interlocutory order
- maintainability
- criminal appeal
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- Section 173(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- FIR
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4876 of 2026
Urmila Devi
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Udai Prakash Deo Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred
by the appellant to quash the order dated 17th April, 2025 passed by the
Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Application No.
119 of 2025 (Urmila Vs. Shubham Pandey & Others), Police Station-
Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra, whereby the application filed by opposite
party no.2 under Section 173 (4) of B.S.S.S. (old Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.), has
been allowed and the Police has been directed to lodge first information report
in the matter.
3. Before considering the present criminal appeal on merits, the learned
A.G.A. for the State has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of
the present criminal appeal by submitting that since the order directing to
lodge first information report on the application made by opposite party no.2
under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. is an interlocutory order, therefore, as per
Section 14-A of S.C./S.T. Act itself, the present criminal appeal is not
maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the aforesaid
submission.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amar Nath VS.
State of Haryana reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137 has opined that
"interlocutory order" "denotes" orders of a purely interim or temporary
nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities
of the parties and that any order which substantially affects the rights
of the accused is not an interlocutory order.
CRLA No. 4876 of 2026
2
6. In the present case also, the impugned order directing to lodge first
information report against the accused is a purely interlocutory order, which
do not affect the important rights of the parties.
7.Accordingly, the present criminal appeal being not maintainable is
dismissed.
May 18, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…