ORDER : 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC against the order dated 04.04.2018 passed Special Judge, under Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Case No. 09/2018 whereby complaint under Sections 420,451,354, 294, 506 Part-II of the IPC and 3(1) B (I) and (ii) and 3(2) (Va) of SC and ST Act has been registered against the applicant and accused has been summoned by the Special Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant met the applicant about 3 years age where the accused introduced himself as leader of Shiv Sena and told that he has connection with the ruling party leaders and he can provide government job to the complainant. The complainant was in need of job, therefore she told her sister and brother-in-law about the assurance of job given by the applicant and gave Rs. 2,00,000/- cash to the accused in July 2016. Subsequently the accused took her signature on the plain paper and told that call letter would have come from Raipur after a few months. It is alleged that after lapse of five months she did not receive any information from the accused, then she pressurized him thereafter the accused told her that he was trying to provide job of Aaya in Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital where his wife was posted as CMO and also stated that some papers are stuck there and Rs. 2,00,000/- will be required to pay then the complainant gave Rs. 1,00,000/- more to the accused in the month of December, 2016 yet she did not receive any call letter from the accused. It is alleged that on 05.01.2017 she went to the house of the accused to ask her money then the accused called her inside the room and forcefully caught hold her, pressed her chest and tried to kiss her thereafter the accused abused her in the name of her caste, pulled her hair, bet and threw her on the sofa thereafter threatened to kill her and family member also. She reported the matter to the police. Since no action was taken by the Police despite complaint was filed, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of the FIR against the accused. She reported the matter to the police. Since no action was taken by the Police despite complaint was filed, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of the FIR against the accused. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur directed for investigation to Police Station City Kotwali thereafter Police after recording the statements of the witnesses submitted report before Judicial Magistrate. On 05.07.2017 learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. 3. The complainant filed application under Section 200 CrPC on 29.11.2017 before Special Judge, SC and ST Act, 1989 for registration of offence. Learned Special Judge after appreciating the material, statement of the witness has registered the complaint under Sections 420, 451, 354, 294, 506 Part-II of the IPC and 3(1) B (I) and (ii) and 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 against the accused. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Special Judge, Bilaspur the applicant has preferred this revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the order of registration of complaint is improper, incorrect and illegal in the eyes of law as earlier complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was filed and the same was dismissed. He would further submit that if the prosecution story is taken as it is even then offence under the atrocities Act is not made out because calling of a person by his/her caste does not constitute the offence. He would further submit that alleged act was committed on account of some money dispute, therefore, prima-facie no case is made out against the applicant. He would further submit that learned Judicial Magistrate directed the police to conduct inquiry and after inquiry the police has found that allegations are false, as such on the same facts cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge and registration of complaint is illegal. He would further submit that the applicant does not want any controversy with the respondent, therefore, he deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 24.01.2017 and Rs. 50,000/-on 17.03.2017 in the account of respondent. He would further submit that the statement of complainant’s sister Sanjulate was recorded before the Special Judge wherein she did not state anything about the applicant, therefore, he prays that the complaint may kindly be dismissed. 20,000/- on 24.01.2017 and Rs. 50,000/-on 17.03.2017 in the account of respondent. He would further submit that the statement of complainant’s sister Sanjulate was recorded before the Special Judge wherein she did not state anything about the applicant, therefore, he prays that the complaint may kindly be dismissed. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya and others vs. State of M.P. and others decided in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3240 of 2013 on 01.08.2013, Badam @ Badam Singh others vs. State of M.P. in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2015 on 02.07.2015 and Poonam Chand Jain and Anther vs. Fazru 2010(2) SCC 631 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the order passed by the trial Court stating that prima-facie there was material on record which discloses the offence, therefore, the trial court has not committed any mistake by registering the complaint against the applicant. She would further submit that learned Magistrate First Class has not dismissed the complaint on merit as it has dismissed the complaint before registration as evident from the order itself. Thus subsequent complaint itself is maintainable before the learned Special Judge and would pray for dismissal of the revision. 6. I have head learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record the point to be determined by this Court is whether after dismissal of the complaint before registration filed under Section 15 6(3) of the CrPC, after considering the report submitted by the police subsequent complaint by adding offence under Atrocities Act, 1989 is maintainable or not?. 8. To appreciate this point it has to be seen by this Court that whether the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was dismissed on merit or not. The record annexed with the petition clearly demonstrates that the complaint under Section 156(3) was unregistered and it was listed before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 05.07.2017 on registration of complaint. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the same on the basis of report submitted by the police which has been prepared on the basis of statement recorded at Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the same on the basis of report submitted by the police which has been prepared on the basis of statement recorded at Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has recorded its finding that without any evidence, material on record adduced before it by recording its finding that there is no sufficient ground for registration of FIR against the applicant. Thus, the complaint has not been dismissed on the merit. The word dismissed on merit means “the decision was based on the evidence, law presented in the case rather on procedural ground. A judgment based on merit is considered final and is bound by res-judicata which means that same claim cannot be raised in subsequent case. 9. From the record it is quite vivid that the complaint has not been dismissed on the merit by the Magistrate as it has been dismissed before registration. Even no evidence was laid before the Court. Thus, the submission made by the counsel for the applicant that the complaint was dismissed, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 10. Further submission of the counsel for the applicant is that subsequent complaint is not maintainable on the same facts is being considered. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in the case Poonam Chand Jain (supra) where the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that if complaint is dismissed on merit, then in exceptional circumstances only the subsequent complaint is maintainable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-15, 16 and 17 has held as under:- 15. This Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar and another vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar ( AIR 1962 SC 876 ). The majority judgment in Pramatha Nath (supra) was delivered by Justice Kapur. His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short `the Code') is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. The majority judgment in Pramatha Nath (supra) was delivered by Justice Kapur. His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short `the Code') is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. This Court explained the exceptional circumstances as:- (a) where the previous order was passed on incomplete record (b) or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint (c) or the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or (d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. 16. This Court made it very clear that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again. In paragraph 50 of the judgment the majority judgment of this Court opined that fresh evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record. This Court very clearly held that it cannot be settled law which permits the complainant to place some evidence before the Magistrate which are in his possession and then if the complaint is dismissed adduce some more evidence. According to this Court such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the law. (para 50, page 899). 17. This question again came up for consideration before this Court in Jatinder Singh and others vs. Ranjit Kaur ( AIR 2001 SC 784 ). There also this Court by relying on the principle in Pramatha Nath (supra) held that there is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which debars complainant from filing a second complaint on the same allegation as in the first complaint. But this Court added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under Section of the Code and dismisses a complaint on merits a second complaint on the same facts could not be made unless there are `exceptional circumstances'. But this Court added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under Section of the Code and dismisses a complaint on merits a second complaint on the same facts could not be made unless there are `exceptional circumstances'. This Court held in para 12 if the dismissal of the first complaint is not on merit but the dismissal is for the default of the complainant then there is no bar in the filing a second complaint on the same facts. However if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merit the position will be different. 11. Again the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Samta Naidu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2020(5) SCC 378 , has taken a similar view and has held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of CrPC is, however, no bar to entertain of second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstance, i.e. where the previous order was passed on in complete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings have been adduced. In the present case, no such material was placed on record and only on the basis of police report and the statement of witnesses recorded by the police the complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate, as such it cannot be said that the complaint was dismissed on merit. Thus, the submission made by the counsel for the applicant that subsequent complaint is not maintainable deserves to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected. 12. Further submission of the counsel for the applicant that he has paid the amount therefore, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not sustainable against the applicant. This is the defence which cannot be considered by this Court at the time of hearing of the revision petition in view of the well settled legal position of law that the defence of an accused cannot be considered in the revision petition as veracity of the truthiness of the material collected by the prosecution or the complainant can be very well examined by the learned trial Court while recording the evidence of all the parties. 13. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the revisional power of High Court as per Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C and held that the scope of interference is extremely limited and it should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous and there is non-compliance of provisions of law or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence or material evidence ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao reported in 2023 (4) Crimes 146 (SC) has considered the power of revision of the High Court at paragraph 8 to 11 as under:- 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only. 9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the chargesheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O. 10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan And Others (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlierpropositions of law laid down on this subject has held: “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” 11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 14. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 14. The similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 3598/2024 decided on 29.08.2024. Thus, in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the stand taken by the applicant that he has made the payment to the complainant are his defence cannot be examined in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao and K. Ravi (supra), as such I am of the view that the submission made by the applicant regarding dismissal of the complaint deserves to be answered in negative. Thus, the point determined by this Court is answered against the applicant and criminal revision is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by this Court on 24.08.2018 is vacated. It is made clear that the trial Court will not be prejudiced from any of the observation made by this Court, as this Court while considering the revisional power of this Court has taken into consideration the fact of the case of both the parties and has not examined the veracity or truthiness of the allegations, material collected by the complainant. It is for the trial court to examine and decide the trial in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence so adduced and material placed before the Trial Court on its own merit.