A Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not have jurisdiction to try an offense directly upon a complaint without a commitment from a Magistrate under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Mrs. Jyoti Arora, former Registrar of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (hereafter to be called as the accused) is seeking the indulgence of this Court within the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of a criminal complaint Annexure P-1 filed by respondent No. 2 Ex-Subedar Nar Singh (hereinafter to be called as the complainant) against the accused pending disposal in the Court of Shri B.P. Jindal, learned Special Judge, Kurukshetra, who has taken cognizance against the accused for trial within Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be called as the Act).

2. Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for the accused argued that complainant has remained deliberately silent to narrate the date in his complaint when atrocious words were used by the accused against the complainant saying that

"Chuhara Chamar Bharti Ho Gai Hain. Thaila Bhar Kar Noton Ka Le Jate Hain. Karte Dharte Kuch Nahin. Tum Jate Ho Ya Dhaka Mar Ke Nikalwaun. Tum Jahan Ke Ho Wahin Rahoge. Ase Hi Tum Ho Asa He Tumbara General Tha Aur Asa He Col. Hai."

3. Rightly so, for his insubordination and dereliction of duty on that date the complainant was placed under suspension and on enquiry punished as well. However, such a date finds mention in the summoning order when allegedly such words were used by the accused against the complainant who went to report the matter to the accused that 50 per cent of the students of LL. B. Final Year had walked out of the examination hall as most of the questions in the question paper were out of the prescribed syllabus. In return the Registrar scolded him and used the said words. It is quite strange that atrocity and harassment was caused to the complainant by the accused on 9-6-1995 but he remained silent about it for 8 months till about the incident an enquiry had taken place against him and he was penalised with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and was also ordered not to be paid anything more than subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension.

4. In this regard, I went through the pre-summoning evidence recorded by the trial Court and on thoughtful consideration it is evidently found that both the eye-witnesses Col. K.D.P. Singh and Satish Kumar were not at all present in the office when the so-called incident took place. They have heard about it outside the office and, therefore, being the hearsay witnesses could not be said to be the direct witnesses to the occurrence. One is a contractor and the other is a Chief Security Officer in the University. May be they have their own axe to Grind against the accused and for that purpose stood witnesses about an incident which never took place in their presence and remained silent for eight months till the complaint was filed in the Court. Even otherwise the allegations are inherently improbable and absurd as the complainant was charge-sheeted on that date for dereliction of his duty and on proper enquiry was penalised as well. Therefore, he managed a complaint to be lodged against the accused after he was punished. The law cannot ordinarily be divulged from justice and learned Special Judge ought to have examined the issue with great care and caution before summoning the accused who is an IAS officer and as Registrar of the Institution was supposed to control the affairs of the Institution.

5. There is inordinate delay in filing such a complaint which appears to be premeditated filed after due thought and consideration to take revenge against the accused and to make her stand in the dock for the complainant on enquiry about the incident was penalised and his two increments were stopped on 15-2-1996 for derelection of his duty. Soon after he was penalised on 15-2-1996 he arranged to file the present complaint against the accused on 22-2-1996. Although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 9-6-1995 he did not seek the action aga