JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.654 of 2021 dated 20.01.2021.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, directing a report from the Commissioner of Police relating to the complaint dated 17.05.2019 is just and reasonable for filing a status or final report on the complaint within two months. 2.a. Originally a complaint has been filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, who is also holding the power under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act), to direct the competent authority first Respondent to register and investigate the complaint of the Petitioner/Respondent herein dated 17.05.2019 in accordance with law and direct them to file a Final Report under SC/ST Act. The said Petition was filed for mere direction. The crux of the allegation in that petition and affidavit to the effect that the Respondent said to be a practicing advocate and he is campaigning the cause of human rights. One Mr S.R.G. Dayal, Inspector of Police(4th Petitioner herein), with the help of Sub-Inspector of Police Mr. Karthik, has involved in various corrupt practices and with the support of Kanja peddlers, had conducted the “Katta Panchayat” (Kangaru Courts) against which the Respondent has sent a complaint to the higher officials. His complaint was enquired by one Mr.Hari Kumar, former Commissioner and he observed that the Respondent is doing such Kangaru Courts and also stated that there are pending cases against the Respondent in K-6 T.P.Chatram and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Stations. According to the Respondent, such finding by Mr. Harikumar made with motive and similarly he has also raised certain issues against certain police officials. To thwart such applications of complaint against the police officials, the police with the help of some six witnesses have created a false case against him and created documents and maligned the Respondent's reputation, observing that the Respondent is habitual notorious rowdy element. He frequently disturbs the Pubic Peace of tranquility. He creates Law and Order problem in K6 Police Station Limit. Therefore, recommended to open a history sheet against the Respondent. He frequently disturbs the Pubic Peace of tranquility. He creates Law and Order problem in K6 Police Station Limit. Therefore, recommended to open a history sheet against the Respondent. 2.b. According to the Respondent, the Petitioners have created history sheet with motive and it is stated by the Petitioners that various cases are pending against the Respondent which are as follows: S.No. P.S. & Cr.No. Offences 1 K-6 T.P.Chatram P.S. Cr. No.715 /2006 U/s 353, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC 2 K-6 T.P.Chatram P.S.Cr. No.434/2005 U/s 341, 147, 323 of IPC 3 K-6 T.P.chatram P.S.Cr.No.1488/ 2005 U/s. 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 506(ii) r/w.4 of TNPHW Act 4 K-4 Anna Nagar P.S. Cr.No.1032/2017 U/s.147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC r/w. 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992. According to the Respondent history sheet cannot be filed against him. Creation of such history sheet violates the fundamental rights of the Respondent and it also amounts to atrocities under SC/ST Act. Hence, sought action against the Petitioners under Section 120-B, 267, 193, 196, 198, 199, 201, 211, 469 and 471 of I.P.C.and sought a direction to register the FIR and investigate the complaint of the petitioner dated 17.05.2019. Based on the above complaint the Special Court directed the Commissioner of Police calling for status report or final report on the complaint within two months which has been challenged by the State. 3. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petition has been filed just like a 482 Cr.P.C.Petition before the Sessions Court for direction to register an FIR which is not permissible under law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that though the Special Court has original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, the enquiry or investigation cannot be conducted by the Special Court. Merely on the basis of the petition, Sessions Court cannot assume the role of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction as available under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to give such a direction. If any complaint is made, making out a cognizable offence before the concerned police officer, when police refuse to receive or FIR is not registered, remedy of the Petitioner lies under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Even if the same has not been materialised he has to chose his remedy by way of Private Complaint. If any complaint is made, making out a cognizable offence before the concerned police officer, when police refuse to receive or FIR is not registered, remedy of the Petitioner lies under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Even if the same has not been materialised he has to chose his remedy by way of Private Complaint. Only after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate can take cognizance of materials, after finding that there is some offence made out which is exclusively triable by special court, concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court shall commit the case to the Special Court. Therefore, in the absence of such powers to the sessions Court to conduct enquiry on the bald allegations of the petitioner such direction cannot be maintained in the eye of law. 4. Learned Counsel Mr.R. Sankarasubbu appearing for the Respondent/defacto complainant, vehemently contended that special Court is a court of original jurisdiction. Therefore, it has right to take a cognizance of offence directly. Further in Chapter IV of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Sessions Court has power to enquire into the complaint directly. Therefore, his contention is that the complaint has been forwarded by the special Court for filing status report or final report which cannot be found fault, since the Sessions Court is the special Court under the SC/ST Act, it has a power to take cognizance of the offence directly. Hence such complaint is maintainable. Hence opposed this Criminal Original Petition. 5. I have perused the entire provisions. As a crux of the allegations as referred above indicate that the grievance of the Respondent is that he has been wrongly roped in the history sheet, which was opened by the police preventing him to making complaints. It is also submitted that writ petitions are also filed challenging the history sheet opened against the Respondent which is still pending. The Respoindent sought action against the police officials under the SC/ST Act for various offences. The entire complaint is in general in nature. The main grievance appears to be with regard to the opening of the History Sheet. No specific instances has been made in this regard. 6. Be that as it may. Whether such complaint can be directly taken cognizance? Whether the Special Court established under SC/ST Act assume the role of the Magistrate to conduct enquiry and investigation? which are the main questions to be answered. 7. No specific instances has been made in this regard. 6. Be that as it may. Whether such complaint can be directly taken cognizance? Whether the Special Court established under SC/ST Act assume the role of the Magistrate to conduct enquiry and investigation? which are the main questions to be answered. 7. It is relevant to note that Section 14 of the SC/ST Act deals with the Special Court and Exclusive Special Court. The same reads as follows: “14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court.— (1) 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 Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more Districts: Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for such Districts, the Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act: Provided further that the Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act. (2) It shall be the duty of the State Government to establish adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under this Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as possible. (3) In every trial in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, the proceedings shall be continued from day-today until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that when the trial relates to an offence under this Act, the trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.]” 8. On a careful reading of the above provision makes it clear that for the purpose of providing for speedy trial only the Special Court has been established. Prior to the amendment in the year 2016, the final report would be normally filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the matter will be committed to the Special Court. On a careful reading of the above provision makes it clear that for the purpose of providing for speedy trial only the Special Court has been established. Prior to the amendment in the year 2016, the final report would be normally filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the matter will be committed to the Special Court. Now, in view of the amendment, the final report will be directly filed before the Sessions Court and Sessions Court will take cognizance directly without offence being committed by the Magistrate. The reason for such amendment is, for any specific bar under Section 193 of Cr.P.C.and also the difference of opinion in various judgements. To set it right and to avoid the confusion, the parliament brought an amendment given power to the Sessions Court to take cognizance of offence directly. The object of Special Court is only for the purpose of speedy trial. 9. Section 15 of the SC/ST Act deals with the public prosecutor to conduct the trial. Section 15-A deals with the Rights of Victims and witnesses. The object of Special Court is only for the purpose of speedy trial. 9. Section 15 of the SC/ST Act deals with the public prosecutor to conduct the trial. Section 15-A deals with the Rights of Victims and witnesses. Sub-clause 8 to Section 15-A of the Act reads as follows: (8) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (6), the concerned Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court may, on an application made by a victim or his dependent, informant or witness in any proceedings before it or by the Special Public Prosecutor in relation to such victim, informant or witness or on its own motion, take such measures including–– (a) concealing the names and addresses of the witnesses in its orders or judgments or in any records of the case accessible to the public; (b) issuing directions for non-disclosure of the identity and addresses of the witnesses; (c) take immediate action in respect of any complaint relating to harassment of a victim, informant or witness and on the same day, if necessary, pass appropriate orders for protection: Provided that inquiry or investigation into the complaint received under clause (c) shall be tried separately from the main case by such Court and concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the complaint: Provided further that where the complaint under clause (c) is against any public servant, the Court shall restrain such public servant from interfering with the victim, informant or witness, as the case may be, in any matter related or unrelated to the pending case, except with the permission of the Court. 10. Sub-clause 8 to Section 15-A of SC/ST Act makes it very clear that in addition to the power of the Sessions Court to provide complete protection to the victim also entertain an application by a victim or his dependant, informant or witness in any proceedings before it or by the Special Public Prosecutor in relation to such victim, informant or witness or on its own motion, take such measures. The combined reading of Sub-Sections 6 and 8 makes it clear that apart from the main case the application can be made by the victim or his dependent or first informant or any other witness for protections etc., On such application is filed, the Sessions court have a power to conduct enquiry or investigation received under Clause-8(c) of Section 15-A. On such application enquiry should be conducted separately from the main case by such court and conclude within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the complaint. Therefore, the power of enquiry or investigation by the Sessions Court limited only to in respect of the protections of the victims and witnesses of the pending trial. Though the Sessions Court has given a power to take congnizance directly, the same cannot be construed to mean that in all the private complaints relating to the offences are entertained by the Sessions court. If the intention of the parliament was to give power to the Sessions Court to entertain the ordinary private complaint and conduct the enquiry or investigation, the same would have been included in the very statute itself. Whereas the conscious omission about the other provisions of conducting investigation or enquiry as normally done by Magistrate makes it clear that Sessions court can take cognizance of offence directly and not supposed to conduct the enquiry investigation in all private complaints. 11. Therefore, the remedy of the person to file private complaint is not a bar under Section 200 Cr.P.C.to apprach the Magistrate and if the Magistrate take cognizance and found that the offence is exclusively triable by Sessions Court, he may still commit the case to the Special Court. Even if during an enquiry due to an offence or a trial before the Magistrate it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one to be tried by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate can commit the offence to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, in the absence of specific power to enquiry or investigation to look into the private complaint other than the Section 15-A, this Court is of the view that Special Court cannot assume the role of Magistrate to receive the private complaint and direct the respondent police to file a status report or final report. 12. Therefore, in the absence of specific power to enquiry or investigation to look into the private complaint other than the Section 15-A, this Court is of the view that Special Court cannot assume the role of Magistrate to receive the private complaint and direct the respondent police to file a status report or final report. 12. Even Section 156 sub clause can very well be available for any of the persons to set the law in motion. If after such enquiry or investigation the Magistrate finds the offence only to be tried by Special Court there is no bar under the law to commit the case to the Special Court. Even though the Special Court can take cognizance of the offence directly. 13. In Shantaben Bhurabhal Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Others [2021 SCC Online SC 974] in para 29 the Apex Court has held as follows: “29. On fair reading of Sections 207, 209 and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and insertion of proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act by Act No.1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016, we are of the opinion that on the aforesaid ground the entire criminal proceedings cannot be said to have been vitiated. Second proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act which has been inserted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016 confers power upon the Special Court so established or specified for the purpose of providing for speedy trial also shall have the power to directly take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act. Considering the object and purpose of insertion of proviso to Section 14, it cannot be said that it is not in conflict with the Sections 193, 207 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It cannot be said that it takes away jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance and thereafter to commit the case to the Special Court for trial for the offences under the Atrocities Act. Merely because, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and thereafter the trial / case has been committed to Special Court established for the purpose of providing for speedy trial, it cannot be said that entire criminal proceedings including FIR and charge-sheet etc. Merely because, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and thereafter the trial / case has been committed to Special Court established for the purpose of providing for speedy trial, it cannot be said that entire criminal proceedings including FIR and charge-sheet etc. are vitiated and on the aforesaid ground entire criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act are to be quashed and set aside. It may be noted that in view of insertion of proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act and considering the object and purpose, for which, the proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act has been inserted i.e. for the purpose of providing for speedy trial and the object and purpose stated herein above, it is advisable that the Court so established or specified in exercise of powers under Section14, for the purpose of providing for speedy trial directly take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act. But at the same time, as observed herein above, merely on the ground that cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act is not taken directly by the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be said to have been vitiated and cannot be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate after insertion of second proviso to Section 14 which confers powers upon the Special Court also to directly take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act and thereafter case is committed to the Special Court / Court of Session.” 14. From the above judgment, the Apex Court has held that merely because of Section 14 of the Act, it cannot be said that it takes away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance and thereafter to commit the case to the Special Court for trial for the offences under the Atrocities Act and it is held that Section 14 of the Atrocities Act has been inserted for the purpose of providing a speedy trial and power under Section 14 is only for the purpose of providing for speedy trial directly to take cognizance of the offence under the Atrocities Act and also held that the same is not taken away the rights of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and thereafter to commit the case to the Sessions Court. Considering the above judgment and provisions, this Court is of the view such private complaint the Special Court has no source of power to make enquiry or investigation to the Private complaint filed directly other than the power to conduct enquiry relating to the rights of the victim, informant and witnesses under Section 15-A of SC/ST Act. To conduct such an enquiry there must be a pending case before the Sessions Court. In such a view of the matter, this court is of the view that the order passed by the Special Court directing the Respondent to file a final report or status report is set aside. It is for the Petitioner to work out his remedy as per the Crminial Procedure Code. 15. In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The Order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.654 of 2021 dated 20.01.2021 is set aside. Consequently, Connected M.Ps. are closed.