JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Annexure P-1 embodies a private complaint instituted before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. The aforesaid complaint was instituted on 12.08.2009 also in respect of the offences constituted in the private complaint besides subsequent thereto, an F.I.R. was lodged on 27.08.2009 with the Police Station concerned. The Investigating Officer concerned, who, held investigations with respect to the F.I.R, submitted his report, cast under the provisions of 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Magistrate, wherein he made echoing’s in respect of, no, offence being made out against the accused. The complainant was aggrieved by the proposals carried in the apposite report filed before the trial Magistrate, hence she preferred objection thereto. As apparent on a reading, of, annexure P-6, the learned Magistrate rejected the proposal made, for closure of case, by the Investigating Officer rather she accepted the objections in respect thereto reared by the complainant. Also on 16/7/2013 she proceeded, to, order for the Investigating Officer holding further investigations. The fate of further investigations, was, of the Investigating Officer, again submitting his report before the learned trial Magistrate, with echoings therein of, no, case being made out against the accused persons, whereafter the learned Magistrate without pronouncing any affirmative order thereon nor upon the objections in respect thereto as reared by the complainant, rather proceeded to pronounce an order whereby the complainant was permitted to examine her preliminary evidence upon the private complainant. The learned Magistrate in proceeding, to entertain a private complaint in respect of offences exclusively triable by the designated Special Court besides her taking preliminary evidence thereon, has apparently taken an invalid cognizance upon the apposite private complaint, given cognizance thereof visibly infracting the mandate of the apposite provisions borne in Section 190 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-section (2) may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts: (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-Section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” 2. Especially when the pre-requisite statutory sine qua non for hers taking a valid cognizance upon the private complaint, was, comprised in hers holding jurisdiction, by eliciting preliminary evidence thereon to hence inquire into the truth of the allegations constituted therein against the accused, apt statutory jurisdiction whereof would ensue vis-à-vis the Magistrate concerned only upon his/her holding jurisdictional competence, to try the offences embodied therein. Contrarily for reasons assigned hereinafter, hers, being barred by the apposite provisions engrafted in the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities ) Act, to hold trial of any offences borne therein besides when in respect of commission whereof, a narrative occurs in the private complaint, thereupon rendered her taking cognizance upon the private complaint to be jurisdictionally void. 3. Reiteratedly hence also she has infracted the mandate of the provisions borne in Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “14. Special Court- For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court by notification in the official Gazettee, specify for each district a Court of Sessions to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act.” 4. Consequently, in the learned Magistrate proceeding to record preliminary evidence upon the apposite private complainant, begets a conclusion that she has hence proceeded to take an invalid cognizance thereon, conspicuously when otherwise it was exclusively preferable before the notified designated Special Court, Special Court whereof are enjoined to be manned by judicial officers, not, below the rank of Sessions Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, in designations whereof, the trial Magistrate does not fall. 5. Be that as it may, as aforesaid, an F.I.R with respect, to, all the offences embodied therein, stood, subsequent to the institution of the private complaint hence lodged with the Police Station concerned. The learned trial Magistrate after eliciting thereon the apposite status reports from the Investigating Officers concerned, thereafter on 16/7/2013 proceeded to record preliminary evidence of the complainant vis-à-vis the private complaint. The learned trial Magistrate after eliciting thereon the apposite status reports from the Investigating Officers concerned, thereafter on 16/7/2013 proceeded to record preliminary evidence of the complainant vis-à-vis the private complaint. Nowat with the Investigating Officer concerned making in the apposite reports, proposals, for closure of the case also upon closure of further investigations carried by him in pursuance to a direction pronounced on 16.07.2013 by the learned Magistrate, his, making an alike prior thereto proposals besides with the complainant rearing objections thereto, yet the learned Magistrate without considering the tenacity of the proposals made by the Investigating Officer also without considering the veracity of the objections in respect thereto reared by the complainant, rather thereafter on anvil of preliminary evidence adduced upon the private complaint, she, proceeded to commit the accused for trial by the Special Court, whereas thereupon it was jurisdictionally inapt for her to make a verdict for committing the accused for trial before the learned Special Judge concerned. 6. The aforesaid recording of preliminary evidence by the learned trial Magistrate upon the private complaint also begets gross infraction of sub section 190 Cr.P.C. also begets gross infraction of the mandate of sub section 210 of the Cr.P.C., provision whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- 210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” wherein there occurs, a trite interdicting mandate upon the magistrates concerned against hers/his, upon conclusion of the investigations upon the apposite F.I.R, being thereupon disempowered to inquire into the truth of the alike therewith allegations reared in the private complaint. The reason is not fetched, given the mandate borne therein qua cumulative trial, subject, to jurisdictional competence of the trial Magistrate, of, both the F.I.R and of the private complaint by him, especially with a statutory prescription therein in respect of merger of private complaint, with, the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Contrarily with the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. failing to unveil commission of offences by the accused, thereupon also the learned trial Magistrate was disempowered to proceed to record preliminary evidence upon the private complainant. Moreover, she was also not empowered to commit the accused for trial, by the Special Court, preeminently when the complaint was neither validly constituted before her nor was preferable before her. 7. The apt legal procedure to be adopted by the learned trial Magistrate, was, after hers considering the tenacity of the closure report instituted before her by the Investigating Officer, in pursuance to hers ordering him, on 16.7.2013, to hold further investigation besides upon hers discerning the veracities of objection in respect thereof reared by the complainant, hers hence rearing a firm opinion that hence a prima facie case being made out against the accused, thereupon she could befittingly commit the accused to trial vis-à-vis the learned Special Judge. She, however, omitted to adopt the aforesaid mode, contrarily, she, on anchor of preliminary evidence adduced upon the private complaint, thereafter proceeded to commit the accused to trial vis-à-vis the learned Special Judge. As aforesaid with the private complaint being unentertainable by her, given hers not holding any jurisdiction to try or take cognizance upon the offences embodied in the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act, thereupon the order of committal of the accused to trial by the learned Special Judge, is vitiated besides defective. Consequently, the order of committal is quashed and set-aside. Consequently, the order of committal is quashed and set-aside. In sequel thereto, the charge framed against the accused by the learned Special Judge is also vitiated and it is also set-aside. However, the learned trial Magistrate is directed to promptly after considering the complainants’ objections and also the proposals made in his report by the Investigating Officer concerned, hence make a decision in accordance with law qua whether, the case, warrants the accused being committed for trial by the learned Special Judge. Needless to say that the complainant, is at liberty to institute a fresh complaint before the learned Special Judge concerned. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith.