IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5543 of 2008 Between: Veerapogu Jashwanth Babu S/o.Prasad R/o.Plot No.11,Panchavati colony Medipally village Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Hyderabad 2 The Station House officer, Uppal P.S., Uppal Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.NAGAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not taking further steps including arrest of the accused in pursuance of Crime No.880 of 2007, dated 24.08.2007 on the file of respondent No.2. Heard Sri Y.Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have worked under one Mr.Srinivas, Manager of Great India Mining Company and that he was made to attend to domestic work and on 22.08.2007, Smt.Aparna, wife of the said Srinivas scolded the petitioner by using filthy language by using his caste name. The petitioner alleged that he went to Uppal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District and lodged a complaint, which was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date, the respondents have not taken any steps for arresting the accused. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record, I am convinced that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, for more reasons than one. The petitioner failed to implead the accused in the criminal case as a party to this writ petition. It is a fundamental principle of law that no order, which is likely to affect the interests of a party, can be passed behind his back. Therefore, the writ petition filed without impleading the accused, whose arrest the petitioner is seeking, is not maintainable and hence, the same deserves to be dismissed. One another reason for my disinclination to entertain the writ petition is that the only grievance of the petitioner is that after registration of the criminal case, respondent No.2 has not completed the process of investigation and arrested the accused. If the petitioner has any genuine grievance in this regard, it is open to him to approach the Special Court, which has the jurisdiction to try the offences and seek appropriate directions to respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner free to approach the Special Court having jurisdiction to try the offences and seek appropriate directions. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.7191 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th MARCH, 2008 kvni