JUDGMENT : B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Bukhari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives source of rule. The petitioners are serving in railway Petitioner No. 1 is serving as Deputy Chief project Manager, Railway Electrification, Baroda in the office of Chief Project Manager, Baroda. Petitioner No. 2 is serving as Assistant Personnel Officer, Railway Electrification, Baroda. Petitioner No. 3 is serving as Law Assistant in Railway Electrification, Baroda. All of them are residing at Baroda. 2. One Dashrath Somji ex-employee of the Railway addressed a letter dated 17.12.1993 (anncxure-A) to Chief Project Manager Railway Electrification, Western Railway Baroda stating that under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Atrocities Act" for short) he was wrongly discharged from service on 29.7.1988 and his discharge itself was an act of satrocity, but he tolerated the same instead of filing criminal prosecution under the Atrocities Act. He had filed application being O.A. No. 144 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.) Ahmedabad and the original order as well as appellate and revisional orders against him were quashed by the Tribunal and by a judgment dated 27.4.1993 the Tribunal directed to rehear his appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. He was supposed to be heard in person or through the choice of his lawyer under the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, but the whole exercise of hearing of the appeal was simply perfunctory and invalid and the decision dated 24.5.1993 should be revoked and a fresh hearing may be given to him through his counsel. It is further stated that if the said notice is not complied with he will file a criminal prosecution against the Chief Project Manager under the Atrocities Act which is cognisable and non-bailable. 3. Mr. Shevade learned Advocate for the petitioner states that there is no Chief Project Manager but there is a post of Deputy Chief Project Manager who is petitioner No. 1 Mr. Shevade further apprehends that a false and frivolous complaint may he filed against petitioner Nos. 1 and also against petitioner No. 2. 3. Mr. Shevade learned Advocate for the petitioner states that there is no Chief Project Manager but there is a post of Deputy Chief Project Manager who is petitioner No. 1 Mr. Shevade further apprehends that a false and frivolous complaint may he filed against petitioner Nos. 1 and also against petitioner No. 2. who is Assistant Personnel Officer and petitioner No. 3 who is; only a law Assistant and therefore they have filed this, application is filed under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code It may be stated that section 18 of the Atrocities Act specifically excludes the operation of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code The Legislature has introduced this Act for the protection and welfare of the downtrodden persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but sometimes it is misused and this is a glaring example where a threat is given by Dashrath Somji to prosecute the petitioners. If this is not checked then nobody either lower or higher officer would be safe and able to function or discharge his duties independently. In any case there is no challenge to the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, therefore nothing more can be done in this matter. There is no such complaint filed by Dashrath against the petitioners. If any such complaint was there on the record, then as rightly submitted by Mr. Shevade that such complaint could have been quashed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code as no offence is committed by any of the present petitioners. 4. Then the question is of what relief can be granted in this petition. Mr. Shevade submitted that the police can be prevented from arresting the accused for some time with a view to enable the petitioner to approach the Court if such complaint is filed by Dashrath as per his letter dated 17.12.1993 (annexure-A). Mr. Bukhari, learned A.P.P. could hardly object to this. Such relief can be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Mr. Bukhari, learned A.P.P. could hardly object to this. Such relief can be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Accordingly it is directed that if any complaint is filed in future by Shri Dashrath against any of the petitioners pursuant to his notice dated 17.12.1993 (annexure-A) the police shall inform the petitioners immediately about it and shall not arrest the petitioners or any of the petitioners for 15 days from the filing of such complaint with a view to enable them to approach the Court. With these application is disposed of Rule is made absolute accordingly. Application disposed.