L.N.Mittal, J.

1. Kuldip Raj Mahajan has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short `the Code) for quashing of criminal complaint No. 130 of 2000 instituted by Hukam Chand-respondent against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar (Annexure P-1) under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short `the Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with summoning order dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-2).

2. The respondent inter alia alleged in the impugned complaint Annexure P-1 that he belongs to Dhanak caste which is a Scheduled Caste whereas the petitioner belongs to Vaish caste which is a higher caste. The respondent, at the relevant time, was working as Head Cashier in State Bank of Patiala, Branch Mayar, District Hisar where the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager. On 9.9.19999, at about 4.45 p.m., the petitioner insulted the respondent in the presence of other employees and abused him by his caste. Petitioners utterances demeaning the respondent by caste have been quoted in paragraph 4 of the complaint. Tilak Raj Khurana, Cashier Incharge and also Jag Ram and Wazir Singh, Watchmen-cum-Peons were present there at that time. They objected to the offensive utterances made by the petitioner, but the petitioner continued with his abusive language. On 10.9.1999, the respondent reported this matter to the higher authorities which further annoyed the petitioner, who ran towards respondent to assault him. Same witnesses saved the respondent. Petitioner was using abusive caste based language against the respondent and threatened to implicate him in a false case and to get him removed from service. The petitioner extended threat to the life of the respondent. The respondent filed a complaint in Police Station Hisar and later on made representation on 29.10.1999 to Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar. Another representation was made to the Inspector General of Police on 9.11.1999. Ultimately FIR No. 11 dated 8.1.2000 was registered, but the police, even thereafter, did not take any action nor arrested the petitioner. On 23.4.2000, the respondent went to the Police Station to inquire about the progress in the matter and was told that due to political pressure, police officials were unable to arrest the petitioner. Thereupon the respondent filed the impugned complaint dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure P-1). After recording of preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-2), summoned the petitioner as accused for offence under Section 3 of the Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing of the impugned complaint and summoning order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned complaint is mala fide and false. It was pointed out that the petitioner as Branch Manager, had to re-allocate the work among the staff when one official was promoted and transferred. Accordingly, the petitioner vide order dated 20.4.1998 (Annexure P-3) assigned additional duty to the respondent to write the Day Book of the Bank and to send all statements, schedules and weekly statement of affairs pertaining to the Day Book seat, in addition to his existing duties. It was contended that the respondent did not relish the additional duty and did not perform the same. The petitioner was forced to write letter dated 30.5.1998 (Annexure P-4) to the respondent intimating that he had discontinued writing the Day Book which was pending since 21.5.1998 and the respondent was not writing the Day Book inspite of repeated requests. The respondent was accordingly again requested to write the Day Book. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of letter Annexure P-4, the respondent did not do his assigned work and the petitioner was accordingly f