JUDGMENT : 1. The case is called out. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Saharsh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate are present in the Court. 3. The e-court record reveals that office has reported vide it's report dated 24.11.2021, the notice issued pursuant to the order of the Court dated 14.07.2021 has been served personally upon the opposite party no.2 i.e. Raj Kumar Verma. As such service is held sufficient. 4. Despite service of notice, none appeared, either the opposite party no.2, the prospective accused in person or the learned counsel on his behalf to represent him, though, learned A.G.A. was directed vide order dated 26.11.2021 to secure the presence or representation of the said prospective accused, opposite party no.2. 5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the facts averred in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 disclose a private dispute between him and the present appellant, the same is dismissed, as such, there is no information or instruction with him in this regard to argue. 6. Sri Ram Kripal Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow, pursuant to the direction given to learned A.G.A. to attend the Court with prospective accused, has come but it is informed that the said opposite party no.2 i.e. prospective accused has denied to attend the Court today. 7. The matter is heard on merit on the basis of materials available on the record of appeal. 8. The instant appeal in hand is moved under Section 14(A) of The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, in Case No.111 of 2021, (Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. Raj Kumar Verma) under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow, whereby the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. had rejected the application of the present appellant under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 9. To appreciate the matter involved in the appeal, a brief account of facts complained in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant is being given here under. The appellant/applicant aforesaid belongs to schedule caste and the opposite party no.2 belongs to other caste. The private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma met the appellant in Mohanlal Ganj and represented himself ‘Mandal Adhyaksha’ of a political party namely ‘Bhartiya Janta Party’. The appellant/applicant aforesaid belongs to schedule caste and the opposite party no.2 belongs to other caste. The private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma met the appellant in Mohanlal Ganj and represented himself ‘Mandal Adhyaksha’ of a political party namely ‘Bhartiya Janta Party’. The Raj Kumar Verma and other workers of the Bhartiya Janta Party induced the appellant to be a member of the party in the year 2016, pursuant to which, the appellant begin to work for the Bhartiya Janta Party as it's active member. The Raj Kumar Verma offered to the appellant to contest elections in the election of Member of Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh for the Constituency No.176, Mohanlal Ganj, which is a reserved Constituency and promised to make it possible in getting candidature of the Bhartiya Janta Party in the election. On the aforesaid representation, offer and inducement, the appellant began to work for the purpose of electioneering in the Constituency on behalf of the Bhartiya Janta Party. The aforesaid Raj Kumar Verma assured the appellant to arrange a meeting with Bhartiya Janta Party's State President, ‘Sri Swatantra Deo Singh’ with whom the said respondent represented himself to have homely relationship and stated him to be in decisive position in the process of allotment of ticket for candidature of the party in elections. The appellant/applicant visited Sri Swatantra Deo Singh with private respondent no.2. After the meeting, the private respondent called the appellant/applicant and represented that he has settled the things with the party’s high ups for the candidature of appellant in the elections and the appellant/applicant has to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- in the party fund. Believing on the representation and promise, the appellant/applicant deposited a cheque bearing no.129729 drawn on Axis Bank worth Rs.5,00,000/-and deliver in cash Rs.10,00,000/-on 01.12.2016 in the account of private respondent, Raj Kumar Verma on his advice. The payment of the cheque was cleared in the account of respondent no.2. In the election for Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly of year 2017, the appellant/applicant when not given ticket as candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, he asked the private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma, the receipt of the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/-paid to him but neither the receipt of payment in party fund nor the repayment of the said amount was done by the respondent no.2. He continuously deferred the delivery of receipt or repayment. He continuously deferred the delivery of receipt or repayment. Further, after a considerable lapse of time, when the receipt was not delivered, a complaint was made in the party forum, when the opposite party no.2 knew about the complaint, he threatened the appellant/applicant of dare consequences, abused him in the name of caste in filthy languages. He also threatened that now the Government is of Bhartiya Janta Party and if the appellant/applicant continues to persuade his complaint, he will falsely implicate in criminal cases to secure his imprisonment, so that receipt of the money would not be claimed by the appellant/applicant for the whole life. 10. The complaint of the said incident was made to Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow on 25.11.2020. The police did not take any action. Thereafter, on 05.12.2020, the matter was complained to I.G.R.S. On their instruction, the Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow started the preliminary inquiry and afterward transferred the inquiry to the Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow. The Police of Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow recorded the statement on the pretext of doing action in the said inquiry but due to political pressure they did not proceed further. The inaction on the part of the police was reported on 19.01.2021 through a complaint to the Police Commissioner, Lucknow and when no action was taken by him also, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act. 11. The order dated 24.03.2021 whereby the application of the applicant/appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected, when examined for the purpose of finding out the reasons why the said application is rejected, it is found in observation of the Court that the entire facts seems to be confusing and unbelievable for the reason when the appellant/applicant and private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma met together to Sri Swatantra Deo Singh then why all the things were conversed between them again separately. 12. 12. Learned court below, the Special Judge has also on the aforesaid ‘confusion’ recorded that seemingly there might have been mutual transaction of money between the appellant/applicant and the private respondent no.2 which has been twisted by framing story under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further declined to act upon the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the reason that there is no mention of date in the complaint as to the appellant/applicant was given threat of life and abused with the name of caste in filthy language by the private respondent no.2. 13. It appears that in passing the order under appeal, the Special Judge wanted to go deep into the allegations searching for the evidences, while he is required under the law to gather the facts emerging from the contents of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. so as to infer the disclosure of information as to commission of a cognizable offence, which the Officer In-charge of the Police Station had to register under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. for instituting the criminal case against the accused. This is to be done by looking into facts prima facie constituting any cognizable offence. 14. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is quoted hereunder:- “154. Information in cognizable cases. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.” 15. The case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677 is cited to impress on the duty of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C.:- “33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.” 16. As such, for cognizable offence a duty has been caused upon the police to mandatorily register a first information report shall given it’s ordinary meaning of being “mandatory” in character as held in Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 . 17. The appellant belongs to Schedule Caste community. This was well known to the private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma. The Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is enacted to prevent the commission of offence of atrocities against the members of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes, to provide for (Special Courts and the Exclusive Special Courts) for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 18. 18. The word “atrocity” in the Act is defined in Section 2 of The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the definition clause (1)(a) provides means an offence punishable under Section 3. 19. The appellant/applicant has specifically alleged in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that when the police did not act even on the instructions issued to them by the government pursuant to the complaint dated 05.12.2020 then he moved a complaint again to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow on 19.01.2021. It is specifically alleged further that when no action was done on his complaint and information as to the commission of offence, the daring accused, respondent no.2 used to abuse the appellant/applicant with the name of his caste on telephones and threatened to cause injury to his life and property because of which the appellant/applicant apprehended to his life. 20. The paras from the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved before the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow are reproduced hereunder for reference:- ^^12- ;g fd ÁkFkhZ vius lkFk ?kfVr ?kVuk o tkylkth dh lwpuk Fkkuk xkslkbZxat] y[kuÅ esa fnukad 25-11-2020 dks fn;k ftl ij Fkkus dh iqfyl }kjk fdlh Ádkj dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA 13- ;g fd tc Fkkuk xkslkbZxat] y[kuÅ es ÁkFkhZ dh dksbZ lquokbZ ugha gq;h rc ÁkFkhZ foo'k gksdj fnukad 5-12-2020 dks vkbZ0th0vkj0,l0 ds ek/;e ls f'kdk;r dh x;h ftlds mijkUr vkyeckx iqfyl Fkkus ls ÁkjfEHkd tkap djds ekeyk xkslkbZxat iqfyl Fkkus dks vUrfjr dj nh x;hA 14- ;g fd Fkkuk xkslkbZxat dh iqfyl }kjk ek= fn[kkos ds fy;s ÁkFkhZ ds c;ku fy;s x;s pwafd foi{kh dh jktuhfrd igqap gksus ds dkj.k mlds fo:) dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh iqfyl }kjk ugha dh x;hA 15- ;g fd blds ckn Hkh tc ÁkFkhZ dh dgh ij dksbZ lquokbZ ugh gq;h rc ÁkFkhZ {kqCn gksdj fnukad 19-1-2021 dks ,d ÁkFkZuki= f'kdk;rh iqfyl vk;qDr egksn; y[kuÅ dks fn;k] fdUrq ml ij Hkh vHkh rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gq;hA fn;s x;s ÁkFkZuki=ksa dh Nk;kÁfr;ka rFkk layXu ÁkFkZuk i= gSA 16- ;g fd foi{kh ds fo:) dksbZ dk;Zokgh u gksrs gq;s ns[k foi{kh ds gkSalys vkSj cqyUn gks x;s gS og vk;s fnu ÁkFkhZ dks tkfr lwpd xkfy;ka Qksu }kjk nsrk gS rFkk tkueky dh /kedh cjkcj ns jgk gS ÁkFkhZ dks viuh tku dk l[r [krjk foi{kh ls mRiUUk gks x;k gSA** 21. The allegations no doubt coming under the offence as described in Section 3 of The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 then also the police had not taken any action against the mandatory requirement of the Rules [The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1955]. Rule 5 is quoted hereunder :- “5. Information to Police Officer in-charge of a Police Station.— (1) Every information relating to the commission of an offence under the Act, if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the persons giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be maintained by that police station. (2) A copy of the information as so recorded under sub-rule (1) above shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in-sub-rule (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who after investigation either by himself or by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall make an order in writing to the officer in-charge of the concerned police station to enter the substance of that information to be entered in the book to be maintained by that police station.” 22. Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act when found the occasion to apply his mind over the contents of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. did not record in impugned order under appeal that he did not find disclosure of the commission of any cognizable offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and in The Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Even, he has not discussed about the requirement of taking action by a competent police officer on information as to the offence committed by a person not belonging to schedule caste with another person knowingly belongs to schedule caste and schedule tribe. 23. Even, he has not discussed about the requirement of taking action by a competent police officer on information as to the offence committed by a person not belonging to schedule caste with another person knowingly belongs to schedule caste and schedule tribe. 23. The appellant having moved an application on the denial from registering the first information report by the concerned Police Officer of the Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow to move the same before the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow on 19.01.2021. 24. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is being quoted hereunder for easy reference in the course of discussion in the matter:- “156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.” 25. The Magistrate can also issue warrant for production before taking cognizance, if after the cognizance has been taken and the Magistrate wants any investigation, it will be under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as it is held in the State of Assam Vs. Abdul Noor and Ors. reported in (1970) 3 SCC 10 . 26. The Magistrate can under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance ask for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Section 190 Cr.P.C. is quoted hereunder:- “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. (2) 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.” 27. In the present case, the Special Judge obviously has not exercised power vested in him rather he rejected the application obviously disbelieving the material allegations made in the aforesaid application disclosing an offence alleged to have been committed by the prospective accused by fraud upon the applicant in the name of his high approaches in a political party, inducing him to believe on the facts he represented and thereby gaining undue advantage of huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/-on the promise of securing his candidature on the party symbol in the forth coming Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections from the reserved seat. 28. Section 415, 420 and 506 of the I.P.C. are being quoted hereunder:- “415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Illustrations (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats. (b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. A cheats. (c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats. (e) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats. (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats. (g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract. (h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats. (i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats. 420. A cheats. (i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 29. Section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 are being quoted hereunder:- “Section 3(1)(s):-abuses any member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; Section 3(2)(v):-commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; Section 3(2)(v-a):-commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Schedules Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.” 30. Bare perusal of the contents in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved before the court of Special Judge undoubtedly discloses the information as to the offence under the aforesaid provisions of law. Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act was to find out the disclosure of the offence, if any, from the information contained in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct the concerned police officer to register the first information report and investigate the matter, but he opted to go deep into the evidences of behind such information for which he was not required under law. 31. On bare perusal of the aforesaid Section in Indian Penal Code, it is sufficiently clear from the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C that there is a complaint against the acts of private respondent no.2, namely, Ram Kumar Verma falling under the offence which is cognizable and non-bailable under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the special enactment of The Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The information as to which was also given earlier to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow, who has not acted even when the recourse was taken by sending the complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow on 19.01.2021 and the Police Station was instructed to inquire into and lodge first information report but same was denied by inaction on the part of Police Station. This compelled the appellant to move the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Lucknow. 32. The complaint lodged in the Consolidated Complaint Redressal System of the Uttar Pradesh by the appellant “Hari Prakash Rawat” and the complaint in written sent through post on 19.01.2021 are annexed with the affidavit in appeal. The copy of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was moved before the learned court below is also on record. 33. Learned Court below was not required to go deep into the evidence but to see whether the allegations made in the application/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and make out a case against the accused. He failed to do so and instead of directing the police for investigation, rejected the application on flimsy grounds. 34. In the present case where the police despite repeated efforts made by the appellant did not lodge the first information report as it is disclosed from the materials available on record and the pleadings in the memo of appeal, no first information report was lodged under Section 154 Cr.P.C. though there was sufficient material to gather information as to the commission of offence, the Special Judge (S.C./ S.T.) Act, Lucknow ought either to issue direction for the registration of the first information report or to treat the application as complaint. 35. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. and others (Supra), has held in para 120 as under:- “(120) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. Government of U.P. and others (Supra), has held in para 120 as under:- “(120) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” 36. The learned trial judge has erred in passing the order impugned in the appeal as neither he has held that there is no material allegation which if taken together, disclose prima facie a cognizable offence. Though the complainant himself is a material witness in the case and the documentary evidence placed by him before the Court below were also sufficient to disclose prima facie an offence believably have been committed by the private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma. This also ought to have kept into mind by the court below that allegedly a huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/-was grabbed by cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing the appellant/applicant to deliver the huge sum of money i.e. Rs.15,00,000/-to him, which the private respondent no.2 got in his account and thus undue gain was earned by him on his inducement on promise to secure in lieu thereof, the candidature of the appellant/applicant in State Assembly Elections from the reserved seat of Mohanlal Ganj. 37. The offences disclosed from application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not only cognizable but also non-bailable. The attitude of the Special Court specially made for redressing the atrocities or wrongs committed by a person belonging to other caste with a person belonging to schedule caste or schedule tribe obviously seems to have swayed upon the magnanimity of the political party and it’s leaders, rather to see the conduct of private respondent no.2, namely, Raj Kumar Verma, an office bearer as ‘Mandal Adhyaksh’ of the Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow. The order of the Court below therefore deserves to be set aside. 38. The order of the Court below therefore deserves to be set aside. 38. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A) of The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, in Case No.111 of 2021, (Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. Raj Kumar Verma) under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow succeeds and is allowed. The accused person, as he had no right to be heard at pre cognizance stage, was given opportunity of being herad, the efforts were taken to secure his presence at the time of hearing, as the court below has dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against him, creating a right of hearing at this stage, but he did not avail the opportunity. 39. The order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, in Case No.111 of 2021, (Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. Raj Kumar Verma) under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow is set aside. 40. The learned Court below i.e. Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow is directed to exercise it’s discretionary power and decide afresh the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by this Court as well as the direction given by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. and others(Supra) within a period of one month from the date, certified copy of the order is produced before it. 41. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of.