The judgment establishes that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the incident must occur in a place within public view, and the allegations must be substantiated with evidence. The absence of a motive on the part of the accused is also a crucial factor in determining the validity of the complaint.

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - By this common order, I will dispose of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 14160-M of 2000 instituted by V.K. Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 2) and Crl. Misc. No. 21154-M of 2000 instituted by R.S. Grover (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1) as both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing of same criminal complaint No. 83 of 1998 (Annexure P-1) instituted by respondent Jasjit Singh under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The respondent instituted the impugned complaint against both the petitioners inter alia on the following allegations.

2. The respondent, after qualifying the Civil Services Examination in 1976, was appointed as Class-I Officer in Indian Railway Traffic Service vide order dated 16.11.1977. The respondent belongs to ad-dharmi caste i.e. Scheduled Caste whereas both the petitioners are non-Scheduled Caste. The respondent was posted as Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Ambala Cantt in June 1992, when he detected five cases of fraud in the Commercial Section of Ambala Division of Northern Railways. Some officials of the Commercial Section and some private persons were involved in those cases of fraud. Accused No. 2 did not like the aforesaid act of the respondent. From the facts and circumstances, it can be presumed that accused No. 2 had a soft corner for many of the railway officials who were indicted in the aforesaid five fraud cases. Accused No. 2 was then posted as Advisor Vigilance whereas one Ashok Bhatnagar was Member (Traffic), Railway Board, New Delhi. The whereabouts of said Ashok Bhatnagar, since retired, are not known to the respondent (therefore, Ashok Bhatnagar has not been arrayed as accused). The persons involved in the fraud cases engineered false and frivolous complaints against the respondent with full patronage of accused No. 2 and Ashok Bhagnagar. The complaints, on inquiry, were found to be false. Accused No. 2 created pressure on the respondent not to go further in the fraud cases. Accused No. 2 and Ashok Bhatnagar ridiculed the respondent with very humiliating, scornful and insulting comments that being from Scheduled Caste, he acquired the said post on the basis of reservation and was going to prove himself Satyawadi Harishchandra. Accused No. 2 further humiliated the respondent by remarking that a Chamaar was to be approached and requested by a higher caste officer. Accused No. 1 came to Ambala Division as Divisional Railway Manager in January, 1996. He was not party to the acts committed against the respondent prior to it. However, accused No. 2 instigated accused No. 1 also against the respondent on caste lines. The accused persons hatched conspiracy to cause damage to the respondent. Accordingly, various acts and omissions, as detailed in paragraph 11 of the impugned complaint, were committed by or at the instance of the accused persons. It was got ordered that the respondent should not be posted on sensitive posts. His name was also included in secret list. He was also ordered to be transferred to Jodhpur but the said transfer was cancelled by the Railway Minister. Respondents representation dated 3.7.1995, against inclusion of respondents name in the secret list, has also not been decided on account of influence of accused No. 2. Some important functions of the respondent were also got withdrawn by the accused persons, vide order dated 19.7.1996, which was challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Accused No. 2, while posted as General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi issued charge-sheets dated 24.5.1996 and 19.7.1996 on false and frivolous a