V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The short question that arises for consideration in Criminal Misc. Nos. 15653M of 1996 and 601M of 1997 is as to whether the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can take cognizance of the complaints directly or if the cases must be committed to it by a Judicial Magistrate.
2. For the sake of facility facts of Criminal Misc. No. 15653M of 1996 are being mentioned, Parwati filed a criminal complaint against Devinder Singh Sarpanch and two others for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter described as ''the Act'') besides Sections 436 and 506 Indian Penal Code. She contended that she is a Scheduled Caste while the petitioners were non scheduled castes. They are asserted to have committed the above said offence. A complaint in this regard was filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate. She mentioned that earlier a complaint was filed before the Special Judge, Faridkot. It was dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing on the ground that it cannot be filed directly before the Special Judge and that the Special Judge cannot take cognizance of the offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate. Faridkot on 2.3.1996 held that there were sufficient grounds to proceed and summoned the alleged accused under sections 3(v) and 3(x) of the above said Act besides Sections 436 and 506 IPC.
3. The abovesaid accused have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the complaint and the order summoning them as accused contending that cognizance could not be taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate and that only the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act can take the cognizance.
4. In the reply filed the respondent contended that the petitioners can approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate for dropping the proceedings. She insists that earlier she had filed a complaint before the Special Judge, Faridkot and it was dismissed on the preliminary hearing holding that unless the case is committed to the Court, the Special Judge cannot take cognizance. The respondent relied upon Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to contend that when there is no special procedure that has been prescribed in terms of Section 193 Cr.P.C., necessarily the Magistrate has to commit the case to the special court.
5. Since this was the short question agitated, it becomes unnecessary to mention the other facts.
6. To appreciate the question in controversy, reference may be made to the scheme of the Act. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been enacted to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It provides for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(d) defines the Special Court to be :
"The expression "Special Court" means a Court of Session to be specified by the State Government with the concurrence of the High Court as a Special Court."
Section 2(f) further explains about the words and expressions which have not been defined. They have been given the meaning as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Indian Penal Code. It reads as under :
"2(f). Words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code or the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall have the meaning assigned to them respectively in the Code, or as the case may be, in the Indian Penal Code."
Under Section 3 of the Act, punishment for certain offences of atrocities has been prescribed while Section 14 reads and is being reproduced below for the sake of facility :
"14. Special Court. For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act."
It is obvious from aforesaid that special courts for trial of offences punishable under the Act have to be constituted. The Special court hav to be a Court of Session in each district. In other words, necessarily it cannot be below the rank of Court of Session. A notification has to be issued. Ipso facto the Sessions Court does not become a special court.
7. On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that when there is no special procedure prescribed, the Special Court cannot take cognizance of the case and the case must be committed by a Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. Reliance was placed on Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners which read as under :
"4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws . (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. Saving . Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force."
Under the said provisions, all offences have to be investigated in accordance with the code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, in the absence of any special provision to the contrary, unless special jurisdiction is conferred, the procedure prescribed could be that of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Can we say that there is an absence of a specific provision to the contrary? The answer would be in the affirmative. The reasons are not far to fetch.
9. it is true that under Section 193 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of Sessions can take cognizance of the offence unless the case has been committed to it by the Magistrate. But the snag is that herein the Special Court when it is so notified is not acting as a Court of Sessions. To be a Court of Session is a minimum qualification. Once it is notified as a Special Court, then it would act as such and would have all the powers of a Special Court. This conclusion gets fortification from Chapter III of the above said Act. It refers to externments. Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 10 and subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 11 reads as under :
"10.(1). Where the Special Court is satisfied, upon a complaint or a police report that a person is likely to commit an offence under Chapter II of this Act in any area included, in "Scheduled Areas'' or ''Tribal areas'', as referred to in Article 244 of the Constitution, it may, by order in writing, direct such person to remove himself beyond the limits of such area, by such route and within such time as may be specified in the order, and not to return to that area from which he was directed to remove himself for such period, not exceeding two years, as may be specified in the order.
(2) The Special Court shall, along with the order under subsection (1), communicate to the person directed under that subsection the grounds on which such order has been made.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
11(1). If a person to whom a direction has been issued under Section 10 to remove himself from any area
(a) fails to remove himself as directed; or
(b) having so removed himself enters such area within the period specified in the order, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Special Court under subsection (2), the Special Court may cause him to be arrested and removed in police custody to such place outside such area as the Special Court may specify.
(2) The Special Court may, by order in writing, permit any person in respect of whom an order under Section 10 has been made, to return to the area from which he was directed to remove himself for such temporary period and subject to such conditions as may be specified in such order and may require him to execute a bond with or without surety for the due observation of the conditions imposed.
(3) The Special Court may at any time revoke any such permission."
The provisions quoted above clearly show that Special Court can entertain a complaint directly with respect to externment and direct removal of persons likely to commit the offence. It has the power to revoke such an order. If a person to whom a direction has been issued to remove himself from any area fails to do so, he can be caused to be arrested. This clearly shows the intention of the legislature. As already pointed out above, the Special Court acts as such and not a Court of Sessions. It is, therefore, not, necessary that cases must be committed as if it is so done to a Court of Sessions. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in the case of Phuman Singh v. Kashmir Singh, 1995(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 371. This Court held that Special Court can directly entertain the complaint and take cognizance. There is no ground to take a different view.
10. On behalf of the petitioners reliance was being placed on certain decisions from different Courts to urge that a view to the contrary has been taken. The attention of the Court was drawn to the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Meera Bai v. Bhujbal Singh and others, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 125. It was held that the said Act makes no provision with respect to procedure for trial. General procedure has to be followed and accordingly it was concluded that the case must be committed to the Court by the Magistrate. I find myself difficult to subscribe to the reasoning of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. As already pointed out above, once the Special Court has been constituted, then it acts as a Special Court and not the Court of Sessions. It would take cognizance of the offences and proceed with the trial. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have no application. Even Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act will not be attracted. The view of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mangli Prasad V. Additional Sessions JudgeIInd, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 769 for the same reason also cannot be appreciated. It is accordingly held that the learned Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
11. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15653M of 1996 a peculiar situation arises. Earlier the complaint was filed with the Special Court at Faridkot. The Special Court dismissed the same holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The view taken above shows that the Judicial Magistrate in fact cannot entertain the complaint. We cannot leave the private respondents remediless. The process of law cannot be allowed to be abused. The interest of justice, therefore, requires that inherent powers of this Court must be exercised. Accordingly it is directed that the present complaint should be deemed to have been presented to the Special Court. The Special Court will record the preliminary evidence and pass the appropriate orders irrespective of the earlier dismissal of the complaint. Respondent No. 2 is directed to appear before the Special Court at Faridkot on 7.7.1997. In the connected Criminal Miscellaneous No. 601M of 1996 the private respondent can file a fresh complaint with the Special Court.
With these directions both the petition are disposed of accordingly.
