IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18495 of 2007 Between: Koneru Varaprasada Rao … Petitioner And The Director General of Police, Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Masthan Naidu Counsel for respondents 1-5: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18495 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in registering Crime No.12 of 2007 on the file of I Town Police Station, Tenali for the offences under Sections 323, 506, 509 IPC and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a further declaration that the investigation caused by respondent No.3 on the complaint lodged by respondent No.6, who does not belong to the scheduled caste, as invalid. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that he has investigated the offence, examined 10 witnesses and recorded their statements, that all the witnesses corroborated the allegations contained in the FIR and that he has also obtained caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Tenali Mandal showing that respondent No.6 belongs to Hindu-Mala caste which falls under SC category. It is further stated that there is ample evidence to establish the allegations made against the petitioner and that the investigation is completed and charge sheet was filed on 26.07.2007 showing the petitioner as absconding, which was taken on file by the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. At the hearing, Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that respondent No.6 is misrepresenting that she belongs to SC community and has been giving false reports against several people including the petitioner. In my opinion, the scope of the writ petition is limited. Unless the allegations contained in the FIR, taken on their face value, do not constitute an offence, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the criminal proceedings while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the charge sheet is stated to have been filed, the petitioner is entitled to defend himself before the jurisdictional Court. For the abovementioned reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition. While entertaining this writ petition, this Court has directed stay of arrest of the petitioner. Since the investigation is completed, I feel it appropriate that the Special Court considers release of the petitioner on bail on his filing his bail application, subject to such terms and conditions as it deems it proper. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WVMP.No.925 of 2008 and WPMP.No.23728 of 2007 are also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.06.2010. ES