1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Pimpri, Pune in Criminal Complaint No.203 of 1996 issuing process against them. The order passed by the Sessions Court in revision has also been challenged by the petitioners. Petitioners are officers of the Bank of Maharashtra where respondent No.1 was employed as a peon. Respondent No.2 is an Orthopaedic Surgeon and respondent No.3 is his receptionist.

2. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent No.1 for acts of misconduct including insubordination. The departmental enquiry resulted in the respondent No.1 being found guilty. He was punished in accordance with law after the management accepted the report of the enquiry officer. Two increments of the respondent No.1 were stopped with cumulative effect. This order of punishment was not challenged by the respondent No.1 before any forum. However, he preferred a complaint before the Sessions Court against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act). This complaint was filed some time in the year 1992 and the statement of respondent No.1 was recorded on 16.4.1992. The Sessions Court directed that the case be transferred to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune who was directed to be register and re-number the complaint. Directions were also issued by the Sessions Court to the J.M.F.C. to deal with the complaint in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Chapters XV and XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These events occurred in the year 1996. Process has been issued by the J.M.F.C. against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Sessions Court has confirmed the issuance of process. Hence this petition for quashing the process issued and the complaint itself.

3. In 1990, respondent No.1 who was working with Bank of Maharashtra was arrested and the charge was framed against him under Section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. Those proceedings i.e. Regular Criminal Case No.11 of 1991 ended in an acquittal on 30.7.1991. It was thereafter that the respondent No.1 filed the present complaint under the Atrocities Act.

4. The main contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the petitioners have not committed any offence much less an offence under the Atrocities Act. He submits that the allegation in the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 is that the petitioners have essentially committed the offences against respondent No.1 under Section 3(1) (viii), (ix) and (x) of the Atrocities Act. The learned advocate submits that reading the complaint as a whole, none of these alleged offences are made out in the complaint filed by the respondent No.1. He submits that in any event the complaint is barred by limitation and, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken of the alleged offences. He further submits that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law for which respondent No.1 should be dealt with strictly. The learned advocate draws my attention to the fact that the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent No.1 was in respect of false medical bills submitted by him, besides various other charges like refusal to work, disorderly and indecent behaviour, insubordination, etc. According to the learned advocate, the criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.1 is nothing but a backlash against the petitioners for having taken disciplinary action against the respondent No.1. The learned advocate has meticulously taken me through the complaint and pointed out that the allegations in the complaint are not justified and do not make out offences under Section 3(1) (viii), (ix) and (x) of the Atrocities Act.

5. Respondent No.2 is accused No.7 in Special Case No.2 of 1992 filed by respondent No.1. He has not preferred a writ petition but prays that this Court shou