JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed of quashing the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 24 of 2003 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri on the ground that even accepting the entire case of the complainant, no offence is made out against the Petitioner. 2. The case of the complainant is that she was working as maid servant in the house of the Petitioner. Two years prior to the filing of the complaint, the Petitioner caught hold of her and proposed to keep her as his wife and also made a promise before the Photograph of Goddess Kali and cohabited with her. It is further alleged in the complaint that the Petitioner continued to have physical relationship with her till she got pregnant and when the matter came to the knowledge of the Petitioner, he gave some medicine to her for terminating the pregnancy and after taking such medicine, the pregnancy terminated. Thereafter also, the Petitioner again continued to have physical relationship with her, which resulted in pregnancy for the second time. It is also alleged in the complaint that when the Petitioner wanted to give her medicine for terminating the said pregnancy, the complainant did not agree as a result of which the Petitioner asked her not to come to his house and also threatened her. On the basis of such allegations the learned Magistrate by order dated 29.4.2004 took cognizance under Sections 493 and 312 of the Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Sri Sarangi, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in course of argument submitted that though the application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding, he confined his case to the offence under the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act. According to Shri Sarangi, on plain reading of the provisions both the offences as alleged in the complaint are not at all made out. Shri Sarangi submitted that there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the Petitioner was in a position to dominate the will of the complainant. Therefore, the offence u/s 3(1)(xii) is not made out. It was also submitted that the offence u/s 493 of the Penal Code is punishable with maximum imprisonment of ten years and, therefore, the offence alleged u/s 3(2)(v) is also not attracted. Therefore, the offence u/s 3(1)(xii) is not made out. It was also submitted that the offence u/s 493 of the Penal Code is punishable with maximum imprisonment of ten years and, therefore, the offence alleged u/s 3(2)(v) is also not attracted. Shri Sarangi also contended that none of the above offences as alleged had been committed by the Petitioner as there is nothing on record to show that above offences were committed on the ground that the complainant is a Schedule Caste. 4. Since the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has confined his case to the offences under the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, it is desirable to look into the provision in respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Section 3(1 )(xii) runs as follows: 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (1) (xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed. On plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the accused must be in a position to dominate the will of the woman belonging to Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Whether the accused was in a position to dominate the will or not will depend in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the present case is concerned, the allegation made by the complainant is that she was working as maidservant in the house of the Petitioner and, therefore, there was master and servant relationship between the complainant and the Petitioner. The Petitioner being the master, it is difficult to agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he was not in a position to dominate the will of the complainant. Prima facie I am of the view that the first contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not acceptable. So far as offence u/s 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act is concerned, the same is quoted below: 3. Prima facie I am of the view that the first contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not acceptable. So far as offence u/s 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act is concerned, the same is quoted below: 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (2)(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. 5. Undisputedly, the offence u/s 493 of the Penal Code prescribes sentence of maximum ten years. The said provision clearly indicates that who ever commits offence punishable with imprisonment for term of ten years or more against a person on the ground that such person is a member of a Schedule Caste shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. Whether this offence is clearly made out or not is debatable question and should be looked into at the time of framing of charge. I am not inclined to form an opinion on the said question at this stage. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had cited two decisions in the case of Sk. Allauddin v. State of Orissa reported in (1995) 9 O.C.R. 228 and Ashok Kumar Sharma alias Lala v. State reported in (1997) 13 O.C.R. 327. On perusal of the aforesaid two decisions, I am of the view that they have no direct bearing on the question in issue before this Court. 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed