JUDGMENT :

1. This is bunch of 83 cases with different reliefs. The matter has been placed before this Court on the reference made by the learned Single Judge disagreeing with the view taken by another learned Single Judge in the case of Soni Devi vs. State of U.P. 2022 (5) ADJ 64. Alongwith the main petition, other petitions and appeals have been tagged with similar issues involved.

2. The question of difference between the two learned Judges is on the second question as framed in the case of Soni Devi's case (supra) which is in para-15 of the said judgment. It reads as under:

''15. The second question for consideration before this Court is as to whether Special Judge can treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case or not.''

3. The answer given to the second question is in para-18 of the said judgment which is as follows:

''18.....Therefore answer to the second question that Special Judge can treat the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case or not? Answer is ''No'' in view of Rule 5(1) of the Amended Act.''

4. While giving reasons for differing with the said answer and making a reference, learned Single Judge has referred the question as follows:

''18. Thus, this Court differs with the view taken in the case of Soni Devi (Supra) in its second question as decided as to whether it is correct?''

5. The petitions are in which applications filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. have been treated as a complaint and the accused persons therein have been summoned to face trial. The accused persons thus are before this Court challenging the validity and legality of the orders passed against them.

6. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing in the main petition has argued that as per the scheme of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') lodging of a First Information Report is mandatory if an act has been complained of, which is an offence. He argued that since the Act is a Special Act, the same overrides any other Act. The Special Court designated under the Act cannot take cognizance of an offence on itself by treating an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. Even Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'') and Schedule (1) of the Rules provide for payment of compensation to the victim at different stages, starting from lodging of the First Information Report. It does not makes any provision for payment of compensation in the event the offence as complained of is treated as a complaint case.

7. Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 4141 of 2022 while referring to Rule 7 of the Rules argued that the same only provides for investigation without any option of enquiry. He further places Rule 8 (via) and (vii) of the Rules and argues that the same also refers to the proceedings of investigation only. He also argued that if the Court takes cognizance directly on an application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the benefit of Rule 12 and Schedule (1) of the Rules will not be extended to the victim unless appropriate compensation is directed to be given. It is argued that as such the scheme and the intention of the legislation is only for lodging of a First Information Report for offences under the Act and not any other remedy.

8. Sri Prateek J. Nagar, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 5974 of 2021 argued that the Act is silent with regards to process, procedure and filing of a complaint and refers to First Information Report only at every place. He states that as such lodging of the First Information Report is mandatory and complaint is not maintainable.

9. Per contra, Sri Syed Ali Murtaza and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsels for the State appearing in all the matters argued that the inception of a criminal case is on the basis of a First Information Report or