The main legal point established is that lack of bona fides and suppression of material facts can render a complaint not maintainable. Additionally, the caste status of the complainant at the time of the alleged occurrence is crucial in determining the applicability of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

L.N.Mittal, J.

1. Chaman Lal Goyal has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code) for quashing of criminal complaint dated 28.10.1999 (Annexure P-4) filed by respondent Kaur Singh as well as quashing of restoration application (Annexure P-2) filed for restoration of earlier complaint dated 19.8.1999 (Annexure P- 9), which was dismissed on 20.10.1999 for want of prosecution on account of non-appearance of complainant-respondent.

2. The respondent initially filed complaint (Annexure P-9) dated 19.8.1999 under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short `the Act) read with Sections 500, 504, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda as Special Court under the Act. The said complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.10.1999 on account of non-appearance of the complainant-respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed application (Annexure P-2) dated 28.10.1999 for restoration of complaint (Annexure P-2) by recalling order dated 20.10.1999 and at the same time, the respondent also filed a second complaint dated 28.10.1999 (Annexure P-4) on the same averments. The case of the respondent is that on 15.8.1999, the petitioner used derogatory words with reference to the Caste of the respondent who belongs to Ramdasi a Sikh Caste which is a Scheduled Caste. Impugned complaint (Annexure P-4) had also been filed in the Special Court under the Act. However, the Special Court vide order dated 3.7.2000 observed that in view of decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 797, Special Court cannot take cognizance of the case under the Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate. Accordingly, the Special Court sent the case to Illaqa Magistrate. The Illaqa Magistrate, on receiving the complaint, straightaway issued summons against the petitioner, presumably because the Special Court already ordered the summoning of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that complaint under the Act could not be filed directly in the Special Court. It was urged that Special Court could not take cognizance of the case without the case being committed by the Magistrate. This question already stands concluded by judgment of Honble Apex Court in case of Gangula Ashok (supra). However, in view of this legal position, the learned Special Court rightly sent the case to Illaqa Magistrate, and so the complaint cannot be quashed on this ground.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that first complaint (Annexure P-9) having been dismissed for want of prosecution, second complaint on the same allegations is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, controverted this contention by relying on Jatinder Singh and others v. Ranjit Kaur, 2001(1) RCR(Crl.) 692 : 2001(2) Judgments Today (SC) 198. In that case also, the first complaint was dismissed on the ground default in appearance. It was held that there was no reason to shut the doors of justice once or for all against the complainant. The judgment of the High Court holding the second complaint to be maintainable was upheld by the Honble Apex Court. In the instant case, however, the respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands. The respondent after dismissal of his first complaint (Annexure P-9) for want of prosecution not only filed the second complaint (Annexure P-4) but also filed restoration application (Annexure P-2) for restoration of first complaint. The factum of filing the restoration application was not mentioned in the second complaint (Annexure P-4) and vice versa. It is correct that in the case of Jatinder Singh (supra), it was observed that complainant cannot be said to be lacking bona fides by suppressing the fact of dismissal of the first complaint in the second complaint. How