JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 10 of 2021 including the order dated 04.08.2022, passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella whereby and where under process has been issued against the petitioners and another accused for the offences punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 13.12.2021 at about 4:30 P.M., the petitioners along with another co-accused person abused the complainant by using his caste name and insulted the complainant and his family members and criminally intimidated them. The learned Special Judge, taking into consideration the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and statement of the inquiry witnesses, vide order dated 04.08.2022 found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ordered issuance of process against the petitioners and the co-accused person. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation in the complaint or anywhere else that the petitioners are not the members of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe which is a sine-qua-non for constituting the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is next submitted that undisputedly the petitioner no.1 was the Manager (Retail Sale) and the petitioner no.2 was the Sales Officer, Tatanagar -1, Retail Sales Area, on the alleged date of occurrence and admittedly the petrol pump is situated at the land belonging to Indian Oil Corporation Limited. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 , para -16 of which reads as under:- “16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself. State of Uttarakhand & Another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 , para -16 of which reads as under:- “16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the civil court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that when there is a dispute about the possession of the land, the same would not disclose any offence under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that he or she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to the unimpeachable document which is the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella, the copy of which has been kept at annexure -7 that the Circle Officer of Gamharia who was appointed as the Magistrate; directed that on 13.12.2021, the said land be made free from encroachment. Drawing attention of this Court to annexure -8, another unimpeachable document, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the same is the handing over possession report which also bears the signature of the Circle Officer, Gamharia and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Adityapur Police Station as a special witness, and submits that this complaint has been filed for wrecking vengeance against the officers who are the public servants of a Public Sector undertaking like Indian Oil Corporation of India Limited in connection of their discharge of their official duty without taking any sanction for their prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 10 of 2021 including the order dated 04.08.2022, passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella whereby and where under process has been issued against the petitioners and one other accused for the offences punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella be quashed. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other raised objection regarding the maintainability of this petition by submitting that since the order dated 04.08.2022 is not an interlocutory order, and as a provision of appeal has been provided for in Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 from orders passed by the Special Judge, which are not interlocutory nature, hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of a special provision of appeal, is not maintainable and in support of his contention that the order dated 04.08.2022 is not an interlocutory order, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relies upon the Judgment of Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 809 , para -21 of which reads as under:- “21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind—an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.” Hence, it is submitted that since there is specific provision, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in this case, hence this criminal miscellaneous petition the dismissed being not maintainable. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 04.08.2022 is not an interlocutory order and since appeal has been specifically provided for in 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the orders other than the interlocutory orders; this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of being not maintainable.