MOOL CHAND GARG, J. 1. The petitioner who belongs to Jatav community recognized as a Scheduled Caste community in Delhi had been working as a Mortuary attendant in Malviya Nagar Colony Hospital at the relevant time when the fourth respondent was posted as a Medical Superintendent. On the basis of a note of the fourth respondent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by the Dr.K.K.Siam, Joint Director (Admn.) of the said hospital in terms of the order issued on 1.6.2005.

2. According to the petitioner, the order of suspension was passed against him on account of wrong information furnished by the fourth respondent, Dr.Rajiv Kumar, who is senior officer who wanted to put the petitioner in trouble and had been threatening him of dire consequences. It is submitted that since the aforesaid information was a wrong information, the said respondent is guilty of committing an offence under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”), which reads as under: “Give any false and frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a schedule caste or a schedule tribe.”

3. The petitioner wanted registration of a case under the aforesaid provisions of the SC/ST Act against the said respondent and for that purpose he filed various representations before the Management and complaints with the Police authorities but without any success.

4. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi seeking direction to the Police authorities to register an FIR under the provisions of the SC/ST Act against the fourth respondent. The said application was not accompanied with any complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

5. When the application came up for consideration before the learned ACMM, she in her own wisdom decided to call for a preliminary enquiry report from the Police authorities in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner. In this regard, a report was submitted before the Court of ACMM by ACP Varsha Sharma who after investigation of the matter reported that no case was made out against the fourth respondent under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In these circumstances, the learned ACMM after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration the report of the ACP dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide her order dated 19.6.2007.

6. The order of the ACMM was then challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.9.2007.

7. By way of the present petition which has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and consequently, also the order passed by the ACMM. He also wants direction to be issued against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to register an FIR against the fourth respondent as prayed by him in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

8. On a query raised by the Court as to how the aforesaid petition is maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 397(3) Cr.P.c. which bars a second revision by a person who has already availed the remedy under Sectin 397 Cr.P.C. by filing a revision petition before the Court of Sessions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, Jitender Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 770 and Lalit Mohan Mondol Vs. Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee (1982) 3 SCC 219. However, he fairly conceded that intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.c. can only be made if a case is made out fo