JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C to call for the entire records connected with the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2022 dated 20.06.2022 by the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Cases/Judicial Principal Sessions Judge, Erode and set aside the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to file an FIR as per law and within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 20.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases/Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against one Gowtham before the second respondent -Inspector of Police, Vellore Police Station, Erode but they did not take any steps to register the F.I.R, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Erode and they have also not taken any action, he preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases/Principal Sessions Judge, Erode in Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2022 and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the proposed accused are known to each other, due to money dispute the accused brutally attacked the petitioner and humiliated in the public view. Further, the petitioner belongs to the member of the scheduled community and the proposed accused is the non-member of the scheduled community. Therefore, he approached the respondent/police, but they have failed to register the case, he filed a petition before the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases/Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, since the offence attracted under Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989 [ hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act' for the sake of convenience]. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner has not specifically brought the case under the purview of the SC/ST Act and also the petitioner has not indicated the community of the accused Gowtham. 4. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner has not specifically brought the case under the purview of the SC/ST Act and also the petitioner has not indicated the community of the accused Gowtham. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court to the original complaint in which though the petitioner has not expressly stated that in the public view the accused insulted him, but he has stated that he had attacked and also scolded him in filthy language. Even assuming that the offence under Section SC/ST Act would not attract, the leaned Sessions Judge would have forwarded the complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate to look into the matter or to direct the respondent/Police to register the case and investigate the matter, instead of dismissing the complaint. He would further submit that once the accused is the non-member of the Scheduled Caste Community and the complainant is the member of the Scheduled Caste it is a presumption that they committed the offence under Sections 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act. The police authority without considering the same simply ignored the complaint given by the petitioner and not taken any action. Similarly, the learned Sessions Judge also simply dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not specifically brought the case under the purview of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the revision has to be allowed and a direction may be given to the respondent police to register the case and investigate the matter. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Police submitted that both the petitioner and the proposed accused entered into a compromise and they did not want to proceed with the case further. He further submitted that at the time of filing the complaint, the petitioner has not stated anything about the offence under SC/ST Act and that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that in the original complaint the petitioner has not expressly stated anything about the alleged offence which falls under the SC/ST Act. However, he has given a complaint that the accused scolded him in filthy language and brutally attacked him. 7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that in the original complaint the petitioner has not expressly stated anything about the alleged offence which falls under the SC/ST Act. However, he has given a complaint that the accused scolded him in filthy language and brutally attacked him. If the learned Sessions Judge finds that there was no allegations regarding the offence under the SC/ST Act either he would have directed the respondent police to register the complaint given by the petitioner or would have forwarded the complaint to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate to register the complaint and pass orders. However, the learned Sessions Judge without considering the same simply dismissed the petition. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is a perversity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 20.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge for SC & ST Act Cases/Principal Sessions Judge, Erode is set aside. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh complaint before the police on the same cause of action. On receipt of the same, the respondent/Police is directed to investigate the matter and file a charge sheet in accordance with law.