( 1 ) BY these applications under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India issuance of summons by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Nagpur for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x), 3 (2) (vii) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") upon Criminal Complaint Case No. 152/2000 instituted by respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) has been challenged.

( 2 ) THE complainant is a Sikh belonging to Mehtar caste which is a scheduled Caste. At the relevant time he was serving as Diesel Mechanic Grade i in South Eastern Railway, Motibagh Diesel Shed, Nagpur. Heeralal Pande, the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 2221/2003 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1) was serving as Sectional Engineer (Electrical ). Srinivasa kalyanaraman, the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 2524/2003 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 2) was serving as Assistant Mechanical Engineer. Shailendrakumar Sengupta, the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 663/2003 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 3) was serving as Senior Sectional engineer in the same office. They were the superiors of the complainant.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, accused No. 1 knowing the caste of the complainant, used to harass the complainant on one or the other excuse and used to abuse him on caste. Despite protest by the complainant accused No. 1 did not stop humiliation to the complainant.

( 4 ) ON 1-2-1999 accused No. 1 pointing to the complainant uttered following words in presence of the staff:- "you are Mehtar by caste, I shall never listen to your complaint. You will never improve, Mehtar - Mehtar - Mehtar"

( 5 ) THE complainant immediately reported the incident to one M. M. Majhi, who advised him to make complaint to accused No. 2. Accordingly on 2-2-1999 the complainant made complaint to accused No. 2 who patiently heard the complainant and assured that suitable action against accused No. 1 would be taken. On 6-2-1999 the complainant lodged written complaint to accused No. 2 whereupon accused No. 2 warned him by communication dated 11-2-1999.

( 6 ) IN violation of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, accused No. 3 issued charge-sheet dated 24-2-1999 against the complainant. Despite cogent explanation dated 8-3-1999 submitted by the complainant, accused No. 3 inflicted punishment on the complainant on 9-3-1999. On 5-5-1999 the complainant served notice to the accused persons calling upon them to tender unqualified apology. However they did not respond. Hence in July, 2000 the complainant filed complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 500 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned magistrate issued summons to accused Nos. 1 to 3 to appear before him. The said action has been challenged by the accused persons by preferring three separate applications.

( 7 ) I have heard Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for the petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 3, Shri S. S. Doifode, APP for respondent No. 1/state and Shri S. T. Dhurve, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant.

( 8 ) WHILE assailing the issuance of summons by the learned Magistrate against accused Nos. 1 to 3, Shri Dewani, the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 3, submitted that the complainant instituted the complaint only as a counter blast to the disciplinary proceedings in which he was punished. Thus the complaint is mala fide and is liable to be dismissed.

( 9 ) SHRI Dewani further submitted that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 3 (l) (x), 3 (2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and it