IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12768 OF 2009 Between: Surichetti Tirupathi and four others ...Petitioners and The State of A.P. Rep. by the Superintendent of Police and two others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Jaya Prakash Babu Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in investigating into Crime No.176 of 2008 pending with respondent No.3 as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents to proceed with investigation and file charge sheet in the competent Court. In response to the notice of this Court, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was, inter alia, stated that on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioners that certain caste people abused them in the name of their community; removed the flags and damaged Ambedkar banner, Crime No.176 of 2008 was registered for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that the investigation revealed that the complaint of the petitioners was false. As the counter-affidavit was somewhat vague, the case was adjourned to enable the respondents to file an additional counter-affidavit and also to produce the case diary. Accordingly, an additional counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.3 and also case diary has been produced. In the additional counter- affidavit, it is stated that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru, examined as many as 9 witnesses and that the statement of L.W.1 was not corroborated by the statements of L.Ws.2 to 9, who are the other complainants, and therefore, it was found that the contents of the complaint were false and accordingly, final report is proposed to be filed after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to point out the contradiction between the counter-affidavit and the additional counter-affidavit, I am of the view that this Court cannot embark upon these aspects while exercising writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction to respondents 2 and 3 to file an appropriate report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is given to the petitioners to file protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.16529 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th July, 2009 vrn