IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.06.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.451 of 2008 A.P.Moorthy ... Petitioner Vs. 1) Thillai Nayagam DSP (Civil Rights Protection Wing) Muthuvinayagar Koil Street, Thiruvannamalai Town, Thiruvannamalai District. 2) Mohammed Ballullah Inspector of Police, Venkkikal Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court dated 10.04.2007 passed in Crl.O.P.No.9151 of 2007. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj O R D E R Heard the submissions made by Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein having waited for some time after lodging a complaint with the police alleging commission of offences including the one punishable under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, approached this court by way of a criminal original petition under Section 482 seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police  Thiruvannamalai district, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil Rights Protection Wing)  Thiruvannamalai district and the Inspector of Police, Venkkikal Police Station, Thiruvannamalai district to register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report within a time to be fixed by the court. This court by order dated 10.04.2007 passed the following order. " Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 14.02.2007 to the third respondent and in which event, the third respondent is directed to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.02.2007, if the allegation contained in the complaint constitutes a cognizable offence, as per the mandatory provisions under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., in the event of the third respondent not registering a case till today and investigate into the matter in accordance with law and the second respondent is also directed to supervise the investigation done by the third respondent and file a final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The criminal original petition is ordered accordingly." 3. Pursuant to the said direction, a case was registered on the file of Thiruvannamalai (Rural) Police Station in Crime No.290/2007 on 25.05.2007 for an alleged offence punishable under Section 3(i)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In Column no.13 the First Information Report, Mr.S.Thillai Nayagam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town has been noted as the investigating officer. Perhaps, the entry has been made based on the orders of the Superintendent of Police appointing him as the investigating officer. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that till the date of filing of this contempt petition, no final report has been submitted. Thus, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents 1 and 2 herein should be proceeded against for contempt for non-compliance with the direction of this court. 4. A perusal of the Order of this court dated 10.04.2007 indicates that there is no specific direction directing the first respondent herein to take up the investigation and submit a final report. On the other hand, the Inspector of Police, Venkkikal Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District was directed to conduct investigation and submit a final report, whereas the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil Rights Protection Wing), Thiruvannamalai District was directed to supervise the investigation to be conducted by the Inspector of Police. It shall be useful to point out the procedure for investigation of cases involving offences punishable under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 mandates that such offences should be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed by the Government or the Director General of Police or the Superintendent of Police. Certain qualifications of the officers to be appointed as investigating officer in such cases have also been prescribed in the said rule. If the case on hand is considered in the light of the said provisions one can easily come to a conclusion that the direction against the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation in the said case cannot be legally complied with. Even if the case is investigated by the Inspector of Police, the same will stand vitiated because of the incompetency of the Inspector of Police to investigate such an offence. 5. Moreover, in the First Information Report itself, there is a note that the investigation has been entrusted to Mr.Thillai Nayagam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai town. That being so, the Inspector of Police, Venkkikal Police Station cannot take up the investigation from the said officer, who is his superior. Therefore, it is obvious that the failure on the part of the second respondent to comply with the direction regarding investigation of the case is because of such legal impediment. As such, it would be quite improper to proceed against him for contempt for non- compliance with the direction of this court. 6. Further more it is brought to the notice of this court, that there is no separate post as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil Rights Protection Wing) at Thiruvannamalai. On the other hand, from the First Information Report, it is found that Mr.Thillai Nayagam, was the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai town as on the date of registration of the case. Therefore, the description of the post of the first respondent seems to be incorrectly given. Above all, as pointed out supra, there is no direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai town to take up the investigation and submit a final report. Therefore, the complaint against the first respondent that he committed contempt of court also is not sustainable. Under such circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that the Contempt Petition does not merit for admission and that the same deserves to be dismissed outright. 7. For all the reasons stated above the contempt petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is given to the petitioner to move necessary petition for P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. ASR a further direction to the present investigating officer to complete the investigation and submit a final report within a span of time to be fixed by the court, if he is so advised. 10.06.2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes asr To 1) Thillai Nayagam DSP (Civil Rights Protection Wing) Muthuvinayagar Koil Street, Thiruvannamalai Town, Thiruvannamalai District. 2) Mohammed Ballullah Inspector of Police, Venkkikal Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District Contempt Petition No.451 of 2008 10.06.2008