IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12189 of 2009 Between: Boini Sammaiah S/o.Rajeeru, R/o.Korapalli village, Jammikunta Mandal Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police, Hyderabad 2 The Superintendent of Police,Karimnagar District Karimnagar 3 The Sub-Divisional Police officer,Huzurabad, Karimnagar district 4 The Station House officer,Huzurabad Police station Huzurabad, Karimnagar District 5 Pingili Jayapal Reddy S/o.Gopal Reddy, R/o.Korapally village of Jammikunta Mandal Karimnagar District ..... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in taking appropriate action against respondent No.5 in connection with Crime No.69 of 2009 registered on 16-03- 2009 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. In his affidavit the petitioner alleged that when the petitioner along with his friend one Ramadugu Thirupathi Rao accidentally met respondent No.5 at a dhaba near the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, the latter abused the petitioner in filthy language by using the caste name. It is the further case of the petitioner that he made a complaint to respondent No.4, which was registered as Crime No.69 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, who is competent to investigate into the offence, is not taking interest in conducting and completing the investigation and instead, he is pressurizing the petitioner to compromise with respondent No.5. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Huzurnagar-respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he, inter alia, stated that as a part of investigation, he visited the scene of offence as well as the native places of the petitioner and respondent No.5; examined and recorded the statements of eye witnesses. He further stated that the Public Prosecutor, whose opinion was elicited by him, opined that there is no sufficient evidence to support the allegations contained in the complaint and that in consonance with the said opinion, a report will be filed after obtaining permission from the superior officers. He also denied the petitioner’s allegations that he brought pressure on him to settle the dispute with respondent No.5. Though Sri.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, disputed the averments contained in the counter- affidavit and submitted that respondent No.3 has not properly investigated, I am of the view that the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a protest petition on the police filing the report in the Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents 3 and 4 to file the final report, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be free to file his protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek appropriate directions therein. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.15740 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st July, 2009 pn/vrn HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12189 of 2009 1st July, 2009