M.R. Verma, J.—A question about the maintainability of the present revision petition has arisen and this order is meant to dispose of such question.

2. The admitted facts relevant for the determination of the aforesaid question are that respondent Karam Dei (hereafter referred to as R-2) lodged a complaint under Section 3(viii), (ix)(x) and (xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioners in the Special Court Kangra at Dharamsala. The Court directed Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters Kangra, to inquire into the complaint and report. After inquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his report to the effect that the allegations in the complaint were false and no case was made out and recommended action against the complainant under Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code), On objections filed by R-2 against the said report, the Special Court ordered fresh inquiry to be conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Kangra, who submitted his report, which was returned by the Special Court, with the direction to resubmit it on 9.9.1996. When the report was resubmitted as directed by the Court, the Special Court directed registration of a case against the petitioners. Thus, FIR No. 307/1996 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Palampur, on 18.9.1996. The investigation was entrusted to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palampur, but conducting of investigation by him was objected to by R-2, therefore, it was entrusted to Deputy Superintendent of Police Dehra, who submitted his report on 29.3.1997, observing that no case was made out against the petitioners and the complaint was false. He further recommended action against the complainant under Section 182 of the Code and cancellation of the FIR. Special Court then directed to send the case file to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. The Superintendent of Police, Kangra again examined the entire case and recommended cancellation of FIR vide his report dated 16.3.1998. R-2 filed various applications against such report. Finally, the Special Court ordered cancellation of the FIR. R-2 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 2000 in this Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Special Court with direction to dispose of the matter by a speaking order. After hearing the parties, the Special Court directed reinvestigation of the case vide its order dated 22.11.2003, which is the order under challenge in this petition. At the time of hearing of this petition for admission, an objection about its maintainability was taken by the learned Counsel for R-2.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question which arose for determination in view of the preliminary objection raised for respondent No. 2.

4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for R-2 that the order sought to be impugned is merely an interlocutory order, therefore, no revision lies against it, in view of the provisions of Section 392(2) of the Code. It was further contended that where filing of a revision against any particular order is expressly barred under Section 397(2) of the Code, then provisions of Section 482 of the Code can also not be invoked and even if the cognizance of an offence is taken by a Court, the powers of the police to investigate the case are not exhausted. They can still proceed with the investigation.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had contended that the impugned order in fact decides about a valuable right of the petitioners inasmuch as the order for reinvestigation of the case has come into being on a cancellation report submitted by the police on which report, at one point of time, the Special Court itself had ordered cancellation of the case, though a speaking order was not p