JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Jain, learned counsel holding for Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chutke, learned APP for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Sable, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The appellant has been charged with the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989. It is alleged, that the complainant is a nurse and is working at P.H.C. Mop, Taluqa Risod, District Washim and is residing in a quarter allotted to her by the department. The Medical Officer is Ashish Harihar Singh. It is alleged that on 29.03.2022, the Medical Officer who resides in the adjacent quarter, had come to the quarter of the complainant and told her that the Chairman (Sabhapati) of the Panchayat Samiti had come to his quarter and was desirous to talk with the complainant and so she should accompany to him. The complainant at the first instance had refused the same. After some time, the Medical Officer again came to the residence of the complainant and reiterated his request, whereupon, the complainant agreed to it and accompanied him to his quarter. After entering into the quarter of Medical Officer, she saw the appellant sitting there, who was an unknown person to her and it is alleged, that at that time, the appellant had made enquires from the complainant and so also regarding her caste which was disclosed and there is allegation that the appellant abused her by using the caste and so also had caught hold of the long end of the saree thrown over the shoulder with an intention to outrage her modesty, in view of which, the complainant ran away from the quarter. 3. Mr. Chutke, learned APP for the respondent No.1/State as well as Mr. Sable, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, opposed the appeal submitting that there is a prima-facie material on record. 4. I have perused the case diary which has been produced by Mr. Chutke, learned APP for the respondent No.1/State. What is material to note is that the appellant, was not known to the complainant earlier in point of time. Sable, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, opposed the appeal submitting that there is a prima-facie material on record. 4. I have perused the case diary which has been produced by Mr. Chutke, learned APP for the respondent No.1/State. What is material to note is that the appellant, was not known to the complainant earlier in point of time. It is also necessary to note, that the entire incident even as per the complaint, has happened in the residential quarter of the Medical Officer, and therefore, the requirement of Section 3 (1) (r) and (s) are not satisfied prima-facie. Insofar as, the allegation of outraging her modesty, inspite of the incident dated 29.03.2022 till date, the statement of Medical Officer Ashish Singh, who was the sole witness, has not been recorded as is indicated from the perusal of the case diary. It has also come on record, that though the Police was called by the complainant on 29.03.2022 after the alleged incident which is claimed to have happened at 06.30 p.m., no complaint whatsoever was lodged on the same day, which was lodged on 30.03.2022 at 03.14 p.m. By an order dated 26.04.2022, ad interim protection has already been granted and considering what has been stated above, a case for confirmation is made out. 5. The appeal is therefore allowed in terms of the interim order dated 26.04.2022, which stands confirmed.