The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the powers of a Special Judge in treating applications under Section 156(3) as complaint cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the applicant Naresh Kumar Valmiki, with the following prayers :

“It, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 12.8.2021 (Annexure No. 2) passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Etah and also be pleased to direct to the police of police station : Aliganj, District : Etah to lodge the FIR and investigate the case against the accused persons in accordance with law and/or may pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, so the justice be done between the parties.

It is further, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 12.8.2021 (Annexure No. 2) passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Etah in Criminal Misc. Case no. 220 of 2021 (Naresh Kumar vs. Indrajit & Ors.) and further be pleased to direct to the learned Special Judge (SC/ST (PA) Act, Etah to proceed application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law and direct to the police of police station : Aliganj, District : Etah to lodge the FIR and investigate the case against the accused persons in accordance with law and/or may pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, so the justice be done between the parties.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his argument only to the aspect that the impugned order dated 12.8.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Etah is ex-facie bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law as an application dated 5.4.2021 was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Indrajit Singh, Abhijit @Chhote Yadav, Akhilesh and Umesh, with the prayer that appropriate order be passed for registration of F.I.R. and investigation upon the same, but the court concerned vide its order dated 12.8.2021 directed the said application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be registered as a complaint and further directed that the matter be posted for further date for recording of statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the opposite party no. 2 to 5 who are the accused in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., are not the members of Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes. He has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Soni Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2022 (5) ADJ 64 and has argued that the issue as to whether an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. specifically with regards to an offence under The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act 1989’), can be treated as a complaint or not, is no more res integra but it has been held in the said judgement that the same cannot be treated as a complaint and the only option before the concerned court is to direct lodging of a First Information Report and investigation thereupon. It is argued that in view of the said judgement, the order impugned be set aside and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be directed to be ordered to be registered as a First Information Report and investigation be carried out against the accused persons.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the said argument and has argued that Special Judge, SC/ST(PA) Act is not bound to direct lodging of a F.I.R. only on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before him. It is argued that the court concerned has to apply its judicial mind and then reach to a conclusion as to what order has to be passed and the order as such passed, has to reflect the independent opinion of the court concerned.

6. This Court has gone through the judgement passed in the