The duty of a police officer of the rank of Dy.S.P. to conduct the inquiry and investigate into matters involving allegations of caste abuses under the Atrocities Act, and the need to protect the rights and dignity of individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati directing issuance of process against the appellant under Sections 447, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal can be summarized thus.

3. On 27.09.2018 one Sampat Shivdas Bandgar lodged a complaint against the respondent no.2 (original complainant) alleging that the respondent no.2 had given threats of false implication of the said Sampat Bandgar on castism and blackmailing him, in future.

4. The respondent no.2 was working for Sampat Bandgar since 1993 to 2005. In 2005, respondent no.2 left the service of Sampat Bandgar and started dealing as a property agent - meaning thereby, he used to deal in sell and purchase of properties as a comission agent. Sampat Bandgar was desirous of purchasing some land at highway near village Bhivgan, which he expressed to respondent no2. The respondent no.2, in turn, informed Sampat Bandgar about a land bearing Gat No. 94, area 4 H 59 R situate at Bhadalwadi of which the owner was one Mr. Haribhau Shankar Shinde. It is the contention of the respondent no.2 that the price of the said land was settled at the rate of Rs.2,05,000/- per acre. It was agreed/promised between respondent no.2 and Sampat Bandgar that after the sale deed, Sampat Bandgar would allot 5 R of land i.e. 50 x 100 feet from the said Gat No. to respondent no.2 in lieu of his commission which would be helpful for the education and future of respondent no.2''s son.

5. Subsequently, despite the deal having been finalized, Sampat Bandgar refused to keep his promise and thereby cheated the respondent no.2. It is the contention of the respondent no.2 that rather he was threatened by Sampat Bandgar and, therefore, respondent no.2 approached the police on 06.08.2018 and lodged a written complaint against Sampat Bandgar. It is alleged that the police did not take any action against Sampat Bandgar.

6. On 14.08.2018, Sampat Bandgar had sent the appellant to the house of respondent no.2. The appellant threatened the respondent no.2 to withdraw the complaint lodged against Sampat Bandgar, else, he would eliminate the respondent no.2 and his family. It is alleged that the appellant was armed with a revolver. He uttered following words naming the caste of the respondent no.2 by saying " tumha Mharana jasta masti aliya, tumchi masti jirvayla vel lagnar naahi ". The wife of respondent no.2 and his son witnessed the incident.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the complaint against Sampat Bandgar, who was arraigned as accused no.1 and Dhairyasheel Ravindra Bandgar as accused no.3, however, issued process against the appellant as above. It is observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that on 14.08.2018, an eye-witness namely, Ajay has specifically alleged that the appellant arrived at their house in the front shed and humiliated the complainant by referring to his caste after brandishing the revolver and intimidated the respondent no.2 to withdraw the complaint filed against Sampat Bandgar. Thus, it is observed that prima facie a case has been made out against the appellant and, therefore, process was issued.

8. I have heard Mr. Rahul Kate, learned Counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mrs. Mhatre learned APP for the State and Ms. Rekha Musale appearing for the respondent no.2/the original complainant.

9. Shri. Kate, learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the impugned order by stressing that the allegation of alleged abuses on caste were not within public view and, therefore, there is no question of attracting the provisions of the Act of 1989. The second limb of his argument was that the alleged abuses on caste were heard on 14.08.2018 howeve