JUDGMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. - This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. in Criminal Revision No.111/2018 by allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the trial court and also further directing the trial Court to hear the matter afresh.

2. The brief facts of the case are these that respondent No.2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe. The property in dispute was recorded in the name of one Ghasram of whom the respondent no.2 was the successor. It is alleged that the applicant No.1, taking benefit of the illiteracy and ignorance of the respondent no.2, obtained her signature on pretext that he will help her in getting the mutation entered in the records and thereafter, on that basis, he prepared a forged power of attorney and made use of the same for registering a sale deed in the name of the applicants. The respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint, after making an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., vide order dated 07.06.2018.

3. Respondent No.2 then preferred a Criminal Revision No.111/2018 before the Sessions court in which the order of the trial Court has been set aside and direction has been issued for hearing the matter afresh.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that respondent No.2 has made a totally false complaint against the applicants. After the registration of sale deed, the mutation proceeding was initiated before Najul Officer Dharamjaigarh, which was registered as revenue case No.21-A-6/2013-14. The respondent No.2 herself gave appearance before the said authority and supported the applicants. There is also a Civil Suit pending between the parties, therefore, it is a case of civil nature. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the complaint and the evidence recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and passed the correct order which has been erroneously set aside in the revision by the Revisional Court. The order sheets of the trial Court mentions about calling of inquiry report and the inquiry report submitted by the police was in favour of the applicants, which was taken into consideration by the trial Court but not considered at all by the revisionary Court. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity which is not sustainable.

5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in S.K. Sinha Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 492 , Balveer Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2016) 6 SCC 680 , Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Ors, (2011) 1 CgLJ 40 (SC) , Elisha Walker Vs. Smt. Kusum Pushpa Tirki and Ors., (2002) 1 MPHT(Chh) 73 (CG) and the judgment of this Court in P.S. Chauhan Vs. Smt. Deoki Bai and Ors., (2009) 4 CgLJ 131 , on the basis of these submissions and these citations, it is submitted that the case is purely of civil nature. Therefore, there is no material present to take cognizance in the complaint filed by the respondent no.2. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 makes formal objection as it is a complaint case.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the complaint was filed praying for taking cognizance in offences under Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was not in a position to dismiss the complaint for the simple reason that the case was triable by the Special Court. Although the trial Court ordered for inquiry report of the police but this was not an exercise of the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

8. Placing reliance on the judgment of supreme Court in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 252 , it is submitted that it was held