Honble KOKJE, J.–The respondents No.2 and 3 Lakha Ram and Ghuda Ram belonging to a Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint against the petitioners Bhura Ram, Aaidan, Asha Ram and Chaina Ram alleging commission of offences under Section 3(i) (iv) (v) (ix) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called for the sake or brevity and conven- ience as the SC/ST Act) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi. The learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter called as the Code) directed the Station House Officer, Phalodi to investigate and report the result of investigation to the learned Magistrate. On this, on 25.9.92 a FIR No. 144/92 was registered at the Police Station, Phalodi and after investigation, a final report was made to the learned Magistrate (FR No. 40/92). The petitioners opposed the report by lodging a protest petition. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties accepted the final report. Aggrieved by this order the respondents complainants filed Criminal Revision Petition No.6/94 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi. On 13.4.94, the learned Ad- ditional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition, set aside the order which accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition,and directed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and to proceed in accordance with law.

(2). The aforesaid order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was challe- nged by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court by the petitioners. In this case an objection was raised that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. It was also contended in the petition that on constitution of Special Courts, the Special Courts alone had jurisdiction to deal with the cases under the Act and no other Court could take cognizance of any offence under the Act or could deal with any such cases.

(3). On 14.8.96 a learned Single Judge, hearing the cases directed the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench disagreeing with the view taken by another Single Bench of this Court in Kedar Nath & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1) on the following points:

1. Whether after establishment of Special Court under Section 9 Cr.P.C. read with Section 14 of Act No.33 of 1989 vide Notification dated 30.1.90, the Special Court alone has power to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. without committal proceedings by a Magistrate and Section 193 Cr.P.C. is not applicable for trial of offences under Act No.33 of 1989?

2. Whether after establishment of a Special Court within the territorial limits of Jodhpur, a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the offences under Act No.33 of 1989 and has no jurisdiction to direct the investigation of such offences in exercise of his power under Sub-sec. (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C.?

3. Whether if any complaint is made for an offence under Act No.33 of 1989 before a Magistrate within the territorial limits of Jodhpur and such complaint is made in writing, then, he is under legal obligation under Sec. 201 Cr.P.C. to return such complaint to the Special Court established under Sec. 14 of the Act No.33 of 1989 with an endorsement to that effect and if the complaint is not made in writing, direct the complainant to approach the Special Court for trial of offences under Act of 33 of 1989?

This is how the case has come up before the Full Bench.

(4). In order to appreciate the controversy a survey of the relevant provisions of law would be useful.

(5). Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code. It also provides that all of- fences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document