JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The petitioner assails the propriety or otherwise of the order dated 4.2.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 1998 setting aside the order dated 13.12.1997 passed by the S.D.J.M. Nilgiri dis¬missing ICC No. 14 of 1997 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts stated hereinbelow would reveal that the case has a chequered career. It is alleged that the husband of the complainant-opposite party No.1 was an accused in a homicidal case and the present petitioner was the police officer who was conducting investigation in the said case. In course of investi¬gation the petitioner wanted to take the foot-prints of the said accused. According to the petitioner, to prevent him from doing so or proceeding against the said accused, the complainant-opposite party No.1 Santilata Mallik, wife of the said accused, filed an FIR on July 18, 1995 inter alia alleging that the peti¬tioner in the garb of investigation raped her on July 16, 1995. On the basis of the said FIR, Nilgiri P.S. Case No. 65 of 1995 was registered which was subsequently converted to G.R. Case No. 118 of 1995 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri. After thorough investigation, police found that the entire allegations were false and fabricated and accordingly submitted final report on 23rd of December, 1995 which was received in Court on 4th of January, 1996 and notice was issued to the informant. 3. While the matter stood thus, it appears, the complain¬ant-opposite party No.1 filed a complaint petition before the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri which was registered as ICC No. 2 of 1996 under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, making the self-same allegations as made earlier. In view of the specific provisions of Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the ‘1989 Act’), the learned S.D.J.M. who lacked jurisdiction, did not entertain the said complaint petition. Thereafter on 8th of January, 1996 the said complainant again filed another complaint petition, with verbatim the same allegations as made in ICC No.2 of 1996, before the learned Special Judge, Balasore. The said complaint filed before the Special Judge, Balasore was entertained and registered as Special Case No. 8 of 1996 under Section 376 IPC read with Sec¬tion 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act. 4. The said complaint filed before the Special Judge, Balasore was entertained and registered as Special Case No. 8 of 1996 under Section 376 IPC read with Sec¬tion 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act. 4. On 13th January, 1996, the learned Special Judge, Balasore recorded the initial statement of the complainant who in course of her deposition revealed that on the basis of the FIR filed by her with the self-same allegations, G.R. Case No. 118 of 1995 was registered in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri. The Special Judge thought it prudent to call for a report regarding the stage of investigation of the said G.R. Case and stayed further proceedings of the Special Case. 5. On 20th of March, 1996 the report was received to the effect that the G.R. Case had ended with the submission of final report and after perusing the said report by order dated 25th June, 1996 the Special Judge directed the complainant-opposite party No.1 to produce her witnesses for inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. On 22nd July 1996 the complainant prayed for time to pro¬duce her witnesses and the case was adjourned to 22nd of Febru¬ary, 1997. On the said date also the complainant failed to pro¬duce her witnesses and she was directed to come ready for inquiry under Section 202 CrPC on the next date. The same order was repeated on 20th of March, 1997. During the pendency of the Special Case, it appears that on 7th of April, 1997 the complain¬ant-opposite party No. 1 filed another complaint petition before the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 376 IPC on 5.7.1995. The allegations were reiteration of the allegations made by the complainant-opposite party No.1 earlier. The said complaint petition filed on 7th of April, 1997 was registered as ICC No. 14 of 1997. 6. The Special Case before the Special Judge, Balasore was thereafter adjourned on several dates, but the complainant-opposite party No.1 did not take steps as directed nor did she cooperate in the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. Consequently the Special Judge had no other way but to dismiss the Special Case No.8 of 1996 by order dated 22nd of December, 1997. It is perti¬nent to mention here that the said order was not challenged by the complainant-opposite party No. 1 which has thus become final. 7. Consequently the Special Judge had no other way but to dismiss the Special Case No.8 of 1996 by order dated 22nd of December, 1997. It is perti¬nent to mention here that the said order was not challenged by the complainant-opposite party No. 1 which has thus become final. 7. The complainant-opposite party No.1 however examined some witnesses in ICC No. 14 of 1997 which was the fourth case filed by her for the self-same cause of action, the first being G.R. Case No. 118/95 which was closed with the submission of final report; the second being ICC No. 2/96 which was found not maintainable and the third being Special Case No. 8/96 which was dismissed for non-prosecution as stated above. The learned S.D.J.M. after considering the statements of the complainant-opposite party No.1 on oath and that of the other witnesses examined on her behalf in course of the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and after observing all paraphernalia under Section 202 CrPC was of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground to proceed with the said complaint case and accordingly in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Section 202 CrPC dismissed the complaint petition briefly stating the reasons for doing so, by order dated 20th of March, 1997 in ICC No. 14 of 1997. 8. The aforesaid order of the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri dated 20th of March, 1997 dismissing ICC No. 14 of 1997 was impugned by the complainant-opposite party No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Balasore. The Sessions Judge allowed the said revision observing that the Magistrate was only required to find out if there was a prima facie case to proceed, but not to scan the evidence as to whether that was sufficient to record a conviction of the accused, which was to be done at the time of trial. According to the Sessions Judge, there was no scope for the learned Magistrate to find out discrepancies in the FIR lodged before the police and the complaint petition filed in Court relating to the names of the witnesses to the occurrence. According to the Sessions Judge, there was no scope for the learned Magistrate to find out discrepancies in the FIR lodged before the police and the complaint petition filed in Court relating to the names of the witnesses to the occurrence. The Magistrate, according to the learned Sessions Judge, was required to pass an order as to whether process was to be issued to the accused or otherwise, basing on the materials placed before him in course of inquiry, the contents of the complaint petition and the statements recorded during the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. On the basis of such observation, the Sessions Judge set aside the order of the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri dated 20th of March, 1997 in ICC No. 14 of 1997 dismissing the complaint petition under Section 202 CrPC and directing the S.D.J.M. to reconsider the matter afresh. After such remand, by order dated 16th of February, 1999 the S.D.J.M. on the basis of the state¬ments recorded under Section 202 CrPC came to the conclusion that no prima facie material for offence under Section 376 IPC was available, but there were sufficient materials for offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly he took cognizance of offence under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner. The said order is also impugned before this Court. 9. Before discussing the propriety or otherwise of the order of the revisional Court setting aside the order of dismiss¬al of the complaint petitioner under Section 203 CrPC and the consequential order of the S.D.J.M. taking cognizance of offence under Section 354 IPC, certain events which need special atten¬tion are as follows : Admittedly the complainant-opposite party No. 1 is a Sched¬uled Caste lady and the provisions of the 1989 Act are attracted in this case. The said Special Act has been enacted to prevent commission of offences of atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to provide Special Courts for trial of such offences and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 14 of the 1989 Act specifically stipulates that for the purpose of providing speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by Notification in Official Gazette specify for each district a Court of Session to be the Special Court to try offences under the said Act. Section 14 of the 1989 Act specifically stipulates that for the purpose of providing speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by Notification in Official Gazette specify for each district a Court of Session to be the Special Court to try offences under the said Act. In consonance with the said provision, the District Sessions Court, Balasore has been de¬clared as the Special Court. Law is well settled that except and apart from the Special Court, no other Court has jurisdiction or authority to try any offence committed under the 1989 Act. 10. Section 3(xi) of the 1989 Act stipulates that whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonor or outrage modesty; and as per Section 3(xii) whoever being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed, shall be punished with rigorous imprison¬ment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years, and with fine. 11. Here is a case where the FIR lodged by the complainant-opposite party No.1 earlier ended in submission of final report. The subsequent complaint petition filed by the complainant-oppo¬site party No.1, i.e. ICC No. 2 of 1996, was rightly not enter¬tained by the S.D.J.M. on the ground that the complainant being a lady belonging to Scheduled Caste the provisions of the 1989 Act were attracted to the case. The complainant-opposite party No.1 being conscious of the aforesaid fact filed another complaint petition before the Special Judge, Balasore which was registered as Special Case No. 8 of 1996, but for the reasons best known to her, she did not pursue that case. Thereafter the present com¬plaint case being numbered as ICC 14 of 1997 was filed. The position of law and the facts are not changed. The Magistrate did not entertain the earlier complaint petition filed by the com¬plainant-opposite party No. 1, i.e., ICC No. 2 of 1996, on the ground that the same involved offence against a Scheduled Caste woman and the provisions of the 1989 Act were attracted, and the said order being not challenged has become final. The Magistrate did not entertain the earlier complaint petition filed by the com¬plainant-opposite party No. 1, i.e., ICC No. 2 of 1996, on the ground that the same involved offence against a Scheduled Caste woman and the provisions of the 1989 Act were attracted, and the said order being not challenged has become final. According to me, in view of the admitted facts flowing out of the allegations made in the complaint petition atrocity having been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the provisions of the 1989 Act being applicable, the case is triable by the Special Court. 12. Even otherwise, a reading of Section 203 CrPC reveals that the said Section consists of two parts, the first laying down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part stating that if after considering those materials there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. While exercising such power, according to me, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to reflect in his order the basis for arriving at the conclusion that there is no suffi¬cient ground to proceed with the complaint case. In other words, Section 203 makes it incumbent upon the Magistrate to give reasons for forming an opinion that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. The Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the materials on which he has to form his judgment and reflect in the order. However while arriving at his judgment, the Magistrate is not fettered in any way except by judicial consid¬erations. He is not bound to accept what the inquiring officer says, nor is he precluded from accepting a plea; provided always that there are satisfactory and reliable materials on which he can base his judgment as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding on the complaint or not. If the Magistrate has not misdirected himself as to the scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and has applied his mind judicially to the materials on record, it would be erroneous in law to hold that he should not consider or discuss the materials available and the statements recorded. If the Magistrate has not misdirected himself as to the scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and has applied his mind judicially to the materials on record, it would be erroneous in law to hold that he should not consider or discuss the materials available and the statements recorded. A Magistrate is empowered to hold an inquiry into a complaint as to commission of certain offence in order to ascer¬tain whether there is sufficient foundation for it to issue process against the person or persons complained against and such order under Section 203 CrPC should be a speaking one. In other words, when a Magistrate intends to dismiss a complaint petition, he has to give reasons. Absence of reasons renders the order a nullity as has been held in the cases of Banchhanidhi v. Srini¬vas, AIR 1967 Orissa 62, and Chandra Das v. Prakash Chandraiah, AIR 1963 SC 1430 . In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the impugned order of the revisional Court is not sustain¬able. 13. In the present case, on perusal of the case records and other materials, I am satisfied that the Magistrate clearly acted in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 202 CrPC. He allowed the complainant-opposite party No. 1 to produce such evidence in support of her complaint as she wished to produce and after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the evidence was wholly unworthy of credence so as to warrant his taking further action in the case. The revisional Court without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law as contained in Section 203 CrPC, by the impugned order set aside the order of the S.D.J.M. which is otherwise not sustainable and I have therefore no hesitation to quash the impugned order of the revisional Court. 14. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circum¬stances of the case, I allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case and set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, further proceedings of ICC No. 14 of 1997 pending before the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri are quashed. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.