JUDGMENT

M. PAPANNA, J. — Invoking inherent powers of this Court the present petitioner makes this application seeking quashment of order of learned S.D.J.M., Baripada taking cognizance of offence against him u/s. 3, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Pre¬vention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘Act’) I.C.C. 101/9 of 2000/99.

2. Complainant’s case is that while the petitioner was working as Chairman, Baripada Municipality, he and his staff demolished her shop rooms. The petitioner abused her husband saying ‘Dhoba’. As a result, he felt insulted in the public. On complainant’s information Baripada Town P.S. Case No. 224/99 was registered. D.S.P., Baripada as authorised officer investgated into the case. He submitted final report stating it as mistake of law. On receipt of notice issued by learned S.D.J.M., Baripada in this regard complainant filed protest petition. Basing on the protest petition, I.C.C. No. 101/9 of 200/99 was registered in the Court of Learned S.D.J.M., Baripada who conducted enquiry u/s. 202, Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner u/s. 3 of the Act. He commit¬ted the case to the Special Judge, Mayurbhanj (Baripada) for trial u/s. 209, Cr.P.C.

3. Learned Advocate, Sri S. Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, questioned jurisdiction of learned S.D.J.M., Baripada to act upon a complaint u/s. 3 of the Act. Maintainabil¬ity of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner who was a public servant at the relevant time, without previous sanction of the Government has also been questioned by Sri Mohanty.

4. Learned counsel Sri. B. K. Sharma, appearing on behalf of opp.party, refuted the contentions of Sri Mohanty. He support¬ed the order impugned before this Court.

5. The present application u/s. 482, Cr.P.C. needs careful examination and adjudication in view of the above question of law raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Law laid down by the Apex Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ram Das Srinivas Nayak and another reported in AIR 1984 SC 718 is of some help in deciding this matter. In the reported case, the Apex Court has held that a Special Judge is competent to entertain a complaint where a Public Servant is alleged to have committed offences as enumerated in Section 6(1) (a) and (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1952. Cognizance of the said offences by Special Judge is legal. The law is well settled that Court of a Special Judge is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. As a Court of original criminal jurisdiction some powers are conferred by the statute setting up the Court. Excepting under the Criminal Procedure Code a Court of Special Judge will enjoy all powers which a Court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys save and except the ones specifically denied.

7. Order of cognizance should be seldom interfered with by this Court. In other words the Court must be slow to interfere with order of cognizance. In rare cases where the Magistrate taking cognizance of offence exceeds his jurisdiction, the Court is bound to invoke its inherent powers conferred on it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order of cognizance.

8. In the present case learned S.D.J.M., Baripada has taken cognizance of an offence under Section 3 of the Act against the petitioner in a private complaint. The Act empowers a Special Judge but not a Magistrate to try offence amounting to atrocities to victims belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Communities as defined under Section 3 of the Act. As such learned S.D.J.M., has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence constituting atrocities under Section 3 of the Act against the petitioner. In my opinion he is totally out of juris¬diction to act upon a complaint under Section 3 of the Act. In such a view of the matter, there is no need for commitment of the case by the learned Magistrate. Reliance can be placed on 78 (1994) C.L.T. 865 (Udhab @ Udhab Charan Kar and another v. Guru Bindhani). In the said case learned Magistr