NIRMAL SINGH,J - (1.) THE respondent filed a complaint under Section 3(v), V, Section 10 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 148/149 IPC against the petitioners. After perusing the statements and other material placed on record, the Special judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 5.7.1997 summoned Kewal Singh and others but petitioners were not summoned. The operative part vide which the petitioners were not summoned reads as under :- "After scrutinizing the aforesaid evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the statement of complainant Mohinder Pal PW-3 finds the requisite corroboration from the sworn testimony of PW-1 Gurmel Singh and PW-2 Sant Singh. They both stated that Kewal Singh Sarpanch accused No. 2 gave filthy abuses to the complainant and further uttered that he alongwith others would kill the Chamars after the destructions of their houses and they should also lift their ladies and would remove their clothes in the presence of chamars. Their statements are uniform and consistent on all the material posts. The names of accused Nos. 3 to 34 have neither been mentioned in the body of the complaint nor by the above mentioned witnesses in their sworn testimony. As such there are grounds to move against accused No. 2 namely Kewal Singh Sarpanch son of Dhannu resident of village and Post Chak Hazipur, Tehsil Garshankar Distt. Hoshiarpur, under Section 3(V), V, Section 10 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) on filing of process fee, copy of complaint and list of witnesses for 8.9.1997."
(2.) THE respondent challenged the order in Criminal Misc. No. 25206-M of 1997. This Court vide order dated 5.8.1998 allowed the petition and remanded the case back to the trial Court for re-appraisal of the evidence. On remand, the learned Special Judge summoned the petitioners, aggrieved by which the present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1 and the subsequent proceedings. Ms. Saloni Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. She contended that the impugned order is a revisable order. She further contended that for filing a revision against the impugned order, there are specific provisions, under the Code of Criminal Procedure and once there are a specific provisions under the Code, then a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
(3.) ON the other hand, Shri K.S. Dadwal submitted that the petitioners have not filed the petition for quashing the summoning order but has come to this Court for quashing the complaint. He submitted that the respondent earlier filed a petition in this Court. The petition was allowed and trial Court was directed to reconsider the material before it afresh by correctly considering the factual position. It was also directed that the Addl. Sessions Judge should take into consideration the fact that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and no FIR has been lodged to the police. Mr. Dadwal further submitted that the learned trail Court has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective nor it has complied with the directions given by this Court.;