IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.14481 of 2007 Between: Yakasiri Ramanaiah. … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Nellore and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice issued in Form No.96 by respondent No.4 as illegal. I have heard Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. On the report lodged by the petitioner, Crime No.23 of 2007 was registered by respondent No.4 against Sri Yamala China Masaiah, Yamala Ankalaiah, Yamala Krishnaiah and Gunji Jayaramaiah for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). While so, by the impugned notice, respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that the investigation was closed and a report is being filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner averred that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, as under the provisions of the Act it is only the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Atmakur-respondent No.2, who is empowered to investigate and file an appropriate report. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is, inter alia, stated that the said crime was investigated by respondent No.2; that after examining as many as ten witnesses and recorded their statements it was found that there is no evidence on the commission of offence by the accused; and that, therefore, after obtaining permission from the higher authorities, the investigation officer filed the final report on 28-6-2007 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, referring the complaint as false. A perusal of the record shows that it is respondent No.4, who gave the impugned notice. Even the counter- affidavit is silent whether, in addition to the said notice, a separate notice was given by respondent No.2. Being the investigation officer, respondent No.2 is required to issue such a notice and file appropriate report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. However, the petitioner is entitled to raise these objections, including the other legally sustainable objections, before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the final report stated to have been filed in the said crime. Giving such liberty to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ---------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02-7-2010 MNR