JUDGMENT Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. The present appellant has preferred this appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31-7-1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 1995, whereby, the learned Judge has convicted the appellant under Sec.3(1)(viii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo S./I. of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further S./I. for seven days, which is impugned in this appeal. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: 2.1. The complainant Smt. Virbala Manilal Banker happens to be a member of Scheduled Caste filed a private complaint before the Court against the present accused. According to it, accused was working as Assistant General Manager with United India Insurance Company, Office No. 1, Ambica Centre, Relief Road, Ahmedabad till June, 1992. In the same office, she was working under him as clerk since 1980. During the period accused misused his power so that complainant would surrender to him and behave according to his wishes. Therefore, she was taken into confidence by opening joint account with the bank under the pretext that by investing such amount in shares, they can acquire monetary gain. It was done by the accused with mala fide intention. In order to exploit her sexually, the accused filed a false and frivolous complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 15. He also gave applications in various police stations to humiliate her and to lower down her in the society. Thus, her matrimonial life may be disturbed and she may surrender to wish of the accused. After filing the complaint before Court No. 15, accused at once withdrew the same, and thus, she was put into mental depression. As he has filed various applications in police stations, she was constrained to visit police station in order to give her statement. Thus, giving mental torture, accused wanted to see that matrimonial life of the complainant would be disturbed, and thereby, he can sexually exploit her. Thus, accused being a superior officer, he misused his power in order to extort money and to blackmail her. Thus, giving mental torture, accused wanted to see that matrimonial life of the complainant would be disturbed, and thereby, he can sexually exploit her. Thus, accused being a superior officer, he misused his power in order to extort money and to blackmail her. She was also threatened by accused that her kids would be kidnapped or killed so that she has to bow down to him. The accused is financially sound and influential person. Thus, accused has abused the process of law and has also taken undue advantage as she being a member of Schedule Caste. The complainant filed a private complaint which was sent to Karanj Police Station under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police recorded statements of witnesses, collected documentary evidence and on being completion of investigation, accused came to be charge-sheeted on 31-1-2005 before the Court of the learned Special Judge for the alleged offence punishable under Secs. 3(1)(viii) and 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was numbered as Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 1995. 2. The accused was charged vide Exh. 4. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant-accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. P.W. 1 Virbala Manilal Exh. 12 2. P.W. 2 Devabhai Chhanabhai Bhambhor Exh. 18 3. P.W. 3 Manilal Khushalbhai Banker Exh. 19 4. P.W. 4 Yogen Pramukhlal Parekh Exh. 26 5. P.W. 5 Kishorsinh Dilipsinh Jhala Exh. 32 6. P.W. 6 Nainaben Rajeshkumar Hidiya Exh. 33 7. P.W. 7 Natubha Jorubha Gohil Exh. 37 8. P.W. 8 Popatsinh Jawansinh Chavda, I.O., Exh. 32 4. The accused has also examined the following witnesses: 1. Kiritbhai Somabhai Shola Exh. 48 2. Hargovind Gafurbhai Parmar Exh. 53 3. Maheshbhai Shankarlal Shah Exh. 58 5. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence before the trial Court: 1. Complaint Exh. 15 2. Certified copy of complaint filed by accused Exh.11 3. Certified copy of the pursis for withdrawing the above 2 complaints dated 2-6-1994 Exh. 8 4. Agreement executed by accused and complainant dated 27-5-1994 Exh.14 5. Caste certificate of complainant Exh.13 6. Copy of complaint filed by accused Exh.9 7. Copy of complaint filed by accused Exh.10 8. Roznama in Criminal Case No.5 of 1995 Exh. 28 9. Certified copy of the pursis for withdrawing the above 2 complaints dated 2-6-1994 Exh. 8 4. Agreement executed by accused and complainant dated 27-5-1994 Exh.14 5. Caste certificate of complainant Exh.13 6. Copy of complaint filed by accused Exh.9 7. Copy of complaint filed by accused Exh.10 8. Roznama in Criminal Case No.5 of 1995 Exh. 28 9. Xerox of report submitted by Shahpur Police Station praying for ‘B’ Summary in M. Case No. 69 of 1994 Exh.29 10 Copy of P.I. Shahpur Rangila Police Station and Asstt. Commissioner of Police “C” Division Exh.30 11. Report along with remarks of Assistant Police Commissioner Exh.31 12. Copy of roznama in Criminal Case No.5 of 1995 Exh.35 13. Copy of report of P.I. Karanj Police Station and Asstt. Commissioner of Police for “C” Summary Exh.36 14. Copy of application submitted by accused to P.I., Ellisbridge Police Station dated 9-5-1994 Exh.39 15. Statement of present complainant Exh.40 16. Copy of report of P.S.I. in connection with above application dated 5-7-1994 Exh.41 6. The accused has also placed reliance on the following documents: 1. Colour Photograph Exh.17 2. Specimen Signature Card Exh.50 3. Account Opening Card Exh.54 4. Cheques of different amount Exhs. 59 to 68 5. Account closing letter Exh. 69 6. Statement of Saving Bank Account Exh. 55 7. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution. 8. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Special Judge, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad vide impugned judgment and order dated 31-7-1996 held the appellant-accused guilty to the charge levelled against him under Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and convicted and sentenced the appellant accused, as stated above. For other offences, he was acquitted against which State has not filed any appeal but original complainant has sent objections by letter which is numbered as revision but she has not appeared. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, the present appellant has preferred this appeal. 10. Heard Mr. Manav Mehta learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Monica Bhatt learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 11. Mr. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, the present appellant has preferred this appeal. 10. Heard Mr. Manav Mehta learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Monica Bhatt learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 11. Mr. Mehta learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused has vehemently submitted that the evidence on record goes to show that the offence under Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence may be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed. Mr. Mehta learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has erred in believing the prosecution case and evidence on record. He has further submitted that the judgment and order of conviction is based on improper appreciation of the evidence of prosecution and based on improbabilities, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Mehta learned Advocate further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that even according to the prosecution the appellant had filed various criminal proceedings in the Court as well as in the police stations with a view to see that the married life of Virbalaben was disturbed and the relations between the husband and wife were strained so that she might be compelled to have relations with the appellant. The evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, however, hopelessly failed to establish this intention on the part of the appellant. Even the trial Court has not believed the witnesses on this count and their evidence on this point. Mr. Mehta submitted that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the offence under Sec. 3(1)(viii) is made out, where in three criminal complaints summons came to be issued and after the summons came to be issued by the Court, the complainant who was the accused in those complaints came and settled the dispute with the present accused. It is further submitted that there were two other cases where the Police filed 'B' summary report, but filing of 'B' 'C' summary report cannot be said to be malicious or vexatious litigation, and therefore, the finding of fact is not only perverse but based on no evidence, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. Per contra, learned A.P.P. Ms. Bhatt has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Ms. Bhatt learned A.P.P. further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo S./I. for six months, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Ms. Bhatt further submitted that learned trial Judge has given cogent reason to hold that the accused has lodged malicious prosecution against the lady belonging to the lower strata of life. 13. I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness-complainant and also perused the charge framed against the appellant. Before adverting to the further evidence on record, this Court will have to go through the provisions of Sec. 3(1), more particularly Sec. 3(1)(viii),3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with which the accused was charged, read as under: "3. Punishment for offences of atrocities:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes: (viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against 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 Tribes; (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 have otherwise agreed;" 14. Now, the question arises, if the accused has not perpetrated the crime on a person belonging to the lower strata under Secs. Now, the question arises, if the accused has not perpetrated the crime on a person belonging to the lower strata under Secs. 3(1)(xii) and/or 3(1)(ix) of Act and under Sec. 511 and 506(2) of I.P.C., can it be said that he has perpetrated the crime under Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the Act. The factual scenario narrated by the learned trial Judge makes it very clear that the complainant was an employee in the Bank. The photographs go to show that she had very deep relation with the accused and those factual scenario are not adverted by this Court so that her dignity in future is not questioned but it speaks volumes. The other aspects which are brought before the learned trial Judge. It is to be noted that it makes very clear that in the criminal complaint even where the learned trial Judge has found substance and issued summons, the parties settled the disputes. In this view, can it be said to be false. This takes this Court to the other aspect whether it is a frivolous and malicious complaint just because lady belonged to Scheduled Tribes. Learned trial Judge has manifestly erred while holding that the defence witnesses are not believable. D.Ws. 2 and 3 categorically shows that the accounts were opened, and therefore, just because the matter was compromised and cheque was also there, it cannot be said that the accused had filed a complaint which can be said to be false. Meaning of words 'false', malicious and vexatious, according to the Oxford dictionary, as follows: false: not according with fact, wrong, incorrect; malicious: characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm; vexatious: 1. Such as to cause vexation; 2. Law not having sufficient grounds for action and seeking only to annoy the defendant 15. The Police having interrogated the parties, as far as complaint filed by the present accused is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused as an Assistant General Manager had dominated the will on complainant and used his power and position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed. It is in evidence that after November, 1992, accused was not superior officer of the complainant as he was transferred to regional office and regional office has nothing to do with clerk of the office of Ambica Centre where the complainant has been serving. It is in evidence that after November, 1992, accused was not superior officer of the complainant as he was transferred to regional office and regional office has nothing to do with clerk of the office of Ambica Centre where the complainant has been serving. Maximum it can be said that the complainant was mentally harassed by the accused by instituting false complaints and it may be resultant into disturbance of her marriage life. Although, husband of complainant witness Manilal Banker Exh. 19 has deposed that accused wanted to exploit sexually his wife (complainant) by filing such complaints. However, the material omissions by way of contradictions which have been brought on record by the defence that during his statement before police, he has not made any statement of such nature. In short, it appears that he has improved his version before the Court to rope the accused on his score. In short, there is no reliable and convincing evidence available on this count. Hence, this aspect is absent. This Court is unable to fathom the reasons which weighed with the learned trial Judge while convicting the accused under Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the Act. The conviction, therefore, is based without any basis. There is already an agreement which is at Exh. 14 which goes to show that the finding of fact at Para 45 is based on no evidence. Once the parties have signed before Notary and settlement had taken place, it cannot be said that the suit was vexatious. This aspect will have to be viewed from the aforesaid aspect whether the intention of the accused was to harass the complainant just because she belonged to lower strata of life. This fact cannot be and is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the said finding being perverse requires to be upturn and the benefit will have to be given to the accused. In absence of any such finding of fact, the learned trial Judge could not and should not have convicted the accused under Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed. In absence of any such finding of fact, the learned trial Judge could not and should not have convicted the accused under Sec. 3(1)(viii) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31-7-1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 5 of 1995 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Bail and bail-bond stands cancelled. R. & P. to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. As he is already on bail, he need not to surrender before the Jail authority. As the main appeal is allowed, Criminal Revision Application No. 303 of 1996 being devoid of merit stands dismissed.