JUDGMENT : R.D. Kothari, J. 1. Petitioners herein are the office-bearers of E.S.I. Corporation. Respondent No. 3, who is the former employee of the E.S.I. Corporation, has filed a complaint for offence under Sec. 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioners pray for quashing the said complaint. Section 3(1)(ix) of the Act reads, thus: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities : -- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (ix) gives, any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." 2. The principal grievance of the complainant is that giving of false and frivolous information by some of the petitioners to the superior of the complainant has led the superior to use his lawful power and such use of lawful power of transfer by the superior has caused injury and annoyance to the complainant. 3. Relevant facts are, thus: "The complainant, at the relevant time, was Superintendent, Insurance Branch No. 6 of E.S.I. Corporation at Ahmedabad. By an order dated 25-10-2005, complainant was transferred from Vapi to Gandhinagar. Then, on the next day i.e. on 26-10-2005, complainant was transferred from Gandhinagar to Wankaner. It is the say of the complainant that he has joined Wankaner Branch on 29-8-2006. Then, being aggrieved by the transfer order, he moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad by filing A.O. No. 326 of 2006. It is the say of the complainant that pending the said A.O., complainant was again transferred from Wankaner to Ahmedabad. That E.S.I. Corporation has filed M.A. in the said A.O. stating that complainant is again transferred to Ahmedabad, and therefore, cause does not survive. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad has passed a detailed order and observed that complainant has not filed any reply to the M.A. filed by the E.S.I. Corporation nor he has remained present. Accordingly, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad disposed of the A.O. concluding that same has become infructuous. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad has passed a detailed order and observed that complainant has not filed any reply to the M.A. filed by the E.S.I. Corporation nor he has remained present. Accordingly, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad disposed of the A.O. concluding that same has become infructuous. In the present complaint with which we are concerned, it is the say of the complainant that by transferring the complainant from Wankaner to Ahmedabad, during pendency of A.O. the petitioners have made complainant's A.O. infructuous, and therefore, complainant has suffered 'loss'. In the fairly detailed complaint running into 10 pages, complainant alleges mala fide on the part of petitioners. Complainant also alleges that false and fabricated documents were made and relied on by the present petitioners to transfer the complainant and to cause him injury and annoyance. Complainant also elaborates causing of economic loss over and above the mental and physical suffering. Al in the complaint is Joint Director, Sub-Regional Office, A2 is the Regional Director of Regional Office, A3 is the Assistant, Administrative Branch of Regional Office, A4 is the Superintendent, Regional Office and A5 is the Branch Officer of Regional Branch. The complaint is filed on 25-2-2008. The complaint filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad is registered as Inquiry Case No. 8 of 2008. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad passed the order directing the police to submit a report on the said complaint within a period of 45 days." 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.D. Karia for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. Ms. Chetna M. Shah for the respondent No. 1-State and learned Advocate Mr. Hardik B. Shah for the respondent No. 3-original complainant. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Karia for the petitioners has drawn attention to Sec. 3(1)(ix) of the Act and has also drawn attention to detailed complaint of the complainant. It was submitted that petitioners have acted in bona fide exercise of powers and transferring of the complainant does not expose the petitioners to criminal action. 6. The complaint of the complainant is almost absurd and frivolous. However, learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the complainant has tried to support the complaint with all seriousness. Mr. Shah has drawn attention to one letter (Page 125) purported to have been written by the Joint Director to the Regional Director referring the conduct of the complainant. 6. The complaint of the complainant is almost absurd and frivolous. However, learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the complainant has tried to support the complaint with all seriousness. Mr. Shah has drawn attention to one letter (Page 125) purported to have been written by the Joint Director to the Regional Director referring the conduct of the complainant. It was submitted that in span of about last 3 years, complainant was transferred for six times. Therefore, there is substance in the say of the complainant that petitioners are acting mala fide. Further, it was pointed out that it is specific allegation of the complainant that complainant's application dated 9-6-2005 is missing from the office. Lastly, Mr. Shah has drawn attention to detailed affidavit-in-reply filed by the complainant. It was submitted that in the facts of the case, either police or Court should be permitted to hold inquiry and let the Court or the police decide about the allegation made by the complainant. 7. None of the material referred to and relied on by the learned Advocate for the complainant goes to show that there is substance in the case of the complainant. Much emphasis was placed on letter produced at Page 125. Therein, the Joint Director in a letter addressed to Regional Director referring the complainant say that they have received telephonic complaint about complainant's 'high-handedness' and 'unscrupulous manner'. On the top of the letter, it is stated - 'Secret'. It is the say of me complainant that mere was no basis for such remarks or observations by the Joint Director. It was submitted that assuming that the telephonic complaint in fact was received by the Joint Director, there is a 'procedure' prescribed in the Service Rules and Officer ought to have followed the procedure prescribed in the Service Rules. 7.1. There is no substance in the say of the complainant. In fairly brief letter which is confidential, the superior has made above referred remark about conduct and behaviour of the complainant. The Court does not find anything wrong in the said letter. 8. As to the making of frequent transfer of the complainant in short period, it was pointed out that most of the transfers were in the same district. 9. Relying on file noting of E.S.I. Corporation, complainant alleges that his representation dated 9-5-2005 is missing from the record, and therefore, there is mala fide exercise by the petitioners. 8. As to the making of frequent transfer of the complainant in short period, it was pointed out that most of the transfers were in the same district. 9. Relying on file noting of E.S.I. Corporation, complainant alleges that his representation dated 9-5-2005 is missing from the record, and therefore, there is mala fide exercise by the petitioners. In this regard, attention was drawn to Annexure-I. Therein, it is recorded that complainant's application was not considered as the same was not received through proper channel and same was sent directly. Assuming for the sake of argument that representation of the complainant dated 9-5-2005 is missing from the file, no inference of mala fide etc. can be drawn only on that basis. Missing of the application not only read by the complainant as mala fide but it is made as the basis for filing the criminal complaint. 10. There is also another aspect. Grievance of the complainant is, causing injury or annoyance to him on account of his transfer by the superior. For this, complainant has to show that such a transfer was on account of complainant being a member of S.C./S.T. In facts and in law, complainant has no case. On facts, there is adverse remarks on record against the complainant which are general in nature and applicable and referable to all categories of the employees, and secondly, complainant having moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, had remained absent before it. In fact, granting the relief to the complainant by passing an order of retransfer by the Authority during the pendency of petition before the C.A.T., is urged by the complainant as causing injury and annoyance, as thereby, C.A.T. proceeding has become infructuous. Such ground is not available under Sec.3(1)(ix) - or under any other law - claim of the complainant is absurd. Then, on law, transfer is a necessary incidence of the public service, and secondly, if transfer is not possible to connect or co-relate with the complainant's cast, then complainant cannot successfully urge committing of an offence under this provision. [See : Lalubha Keshrisinh Garasia's case, 1997 (3) GLR 2568 .] 11. It was submitted at the time of hearing that complainant has attained superannuation on 31-3-2008. Present complaint is filed on the eve of attaining superannuation. The learned trial Court has seriously erred in passing order mechanically directing the police to make inquiry. [See : Lalubha Keshrisinh Garasia's case, 1997 (3) GLR 2568 .] 11. It was submitted at the time of hearing that complainant has attained superannuation on 31-3-2008. Present complaint is filed on the eve of attaining superannuation. The learned trial Court has seriously erred in passing order mechanically directing the police to make inquiry. As observed in opening part of the judgment, complaint is almost absurd and frivolous. Initiation of proceeding by the complainant is abuse of process of law. Therefore, interference in exercise of inherent power is called for, and accordingly, present petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The complaint being Inquiry Case No. 8 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. This Court was inclined to impose heavy costs upon the complainant, who is present before the Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah drawn the attention of the Court that this matter has been assigned to him through State Legal Services Authority and the complainant has availed the service of the Advocate by applying to the State Legal Services Authority on account of he being a member of Scheduled Caste. This is hardly relevant and material as filing of such a complaint and not opposing the present petition has exposed the respondent to order of cost. Considering the submission made by learned Advocates for the parties, the Court restrains itself from passing any order of imposing the costs.