ORDER : By way of instant Cr. Revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-9), whereby learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P. after having found sufficient reasons to frame charge against the petitioner for his having committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, framed charges under aforesaid sections against the petitioner herein and assigned the case for adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, H.P. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant Praveen Kumari (since deceased) filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., stating therein that she had filed a complaint before learned District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., which was sent to police station for investigation. On the direction issued by learned District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.05.2016, was registered against the petitioner for his having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC. Complainant alleged that the aforesaid case is pending adjudication with the SHO of Police Station, Sadar, Mandi, H.P., but some of allegations made by her in the complaint with regard to atrocities committed upon her on account of her being scheduled caste at the hands of petitioner are not being taken cognizance, as a consequence of which, prejudice is being caused to her. Complainant alleged that she belongs to scheduled caste and accused, who belongs to higher caste, used derogatory and vulgar language against her and also obstructed her path. She alleged that the alleged incident took place on 08.07.2016 and was witnessed by the passer-by. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording statements of complainant and eye witnesses found prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence alleged to have been committed by him under various provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, but since court of Sessions, has been designated as a Special Court and has power to directly take cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid Act, complaint was returned to the complainant with the direction to present the same before the competent court of law. In that background, complaint, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged before Special Judge, Mandi, H.P., who after having recorded statements of complainant and the eye witnesses, proceeded to frame charge against petitioner for his having committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the meantime, petitioner approached this Court by way of petition bearing Cr.MMO No 259 of 2017, tilted Gaurav Oberoi vs. State of H.P., praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.05.2016, registered against him at the behest of complainant Praveen Kumari. This Court vide order dated 25th August, 2021, passed in Cr.MMO No. 259 of 2017, titled Gaurav Oberoi vs. State of H.P., allowed the petition and quashed FIR, as detailed hereinabove registered against the petitioner as well as summoning order dated 24.04.2017. After passing of aforesaid order dated 25th August, 2017, passed by this Court, petitioner set up a case before Special Judge, Mandi, in a case registered against him under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since, main FIR, i.e. FIR No. 135/2016, dated 12.05.2016, having been filed by the complainant Praveen Kumari, has been quashed, subsequent case registered against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not maintainable, but learned Special Judge, Mandi, while negating aforesaid plea made on behalf of the petitioner, proceeded to frame charge, as has been noticed hereinabove, against him for his having committed offence punishable under aforesaid Act. In the aforesaid background petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2021, passed by learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P. 3. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that when main FIR bearing No. 135/2016, dated 12.05.2016, registered at the behest of complainant Praveen Kumari against the petitioner stands quashed vide order dated 25th August, 2021, passed by this Court coupled with the fact that complainant Praveen Kumari has expired, learned Special Judge, Mandi, could not have taken cognizance of the complaint, if any, filed by complainant Praveen Kumari under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, contended that no doubt, FIR bearing No. 135 of 2016, dated 12.05.2016, registered against the petitioner was quashed by this Court vide order dated 25th August, 2021, but in that FIR, there is no mention, if any, of case against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, rather complainant Praveen Kumari, filed separate complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging therein that police has not filed the case against the petitioner under the various provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act and as such, appropriate directions may be issued to register the case at hand against him under the aforesaid Act. However, since offences, if any, under the various provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, is triable by the Special Court, matter came to be listed before Special Judge, Mandi, who thereafter vide order dated 13.12.2021, after having recorded the statements of complainant and eye witnesses framed charges against the petitioner for his having committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Having analyzed rival submissions raised by learned counsel representing the parties vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Special Judge in order dated 13.12.2021, this Court finds no merit in the present petition for the reasons that at no point of time offence punishable under any of the the provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, was part of FIR No. 135 of 2016, dated 12.05.2016, which was quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 25th August, 2021 in Cr.MMO No. 259 of 2017, rather that FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 342 354, 504 and 506 of IPC. Case under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was separately filed against the petitioner on the basis of statements of complainant and eye witnesses recorded before learned Special Judge, Mandi. Case under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was separately filed against the petitioner on the basis of statements of complainant and eye witnesses recorded before learned Special Judge, Mandi. Since, FIR ordered to be quashed by this court vide order dated 25th August, 2021, never contained allegations, if any, with regard to commission of offence punishable under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, there was no occasion for learned Special Judge to accede to the request of petitioner for quashing of complaint on the basis of order dated 25th August, 2021, passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No. 259 of 2017. Hence, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Special Judge, as far as while framing charge against the petitioner for his having committed offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Similarly, this Court finds no force in the submission of Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner that since complaint, if any, filed by complainant against the petitioner under various provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, is not maintainable and as such, deserves outright rejection being devoid of any merit. It is also not in dispute that statement of complainant as well as eye witnesses of the alleged incident stood recorded prior to death of the complainant Praveen Kumari, if it is so, Cr. Case registered at the behest of complainant cannot be closed/dismissed on account of death of the complainant because Public Prosecutor is competent to appear and conduct prosecution before the court of Sessions. After recording of statement of complainant, case is to be conducted on her behalf by Public Prosecutor. Since, Court had already found a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and there is no provision of leading pre charge evidence before the court of Sessions, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Special Judge while framing charge against the accused, which now otherwise is required to be proved in accordance with law by prosecution, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 6. 6. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion, as made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, in above terms, so also the pending application(s) if any. Interim orders stand vacated.