THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2206 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek relief by way of Writ of Prohibition to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing proceedings in C.No.185/C2/SC,ST/2005, dated 18.01.2005 in ordering re-investigation into Crime No.28 of 2003 on the file of P.S.Palakoderu, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further into the said crime. The seventh respondent has filed a private complaint before II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhimavaram, West Godavari, against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Sections 448 and 506(2) IPC. On filing such complaint, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the fourth respondent for investigation as contemplated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of such proceedings, the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.28 of 2003 for the alleged offences and forwarded the same to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsapur, for investigation, as he is the competent authority to investigate into the said crime. After completion of investigation, the third respondent - Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsapur, submitted his report vide letter, dated 10.08.2003, to the first respondent - Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, stating that the allegations levelled against the petitioners were false and requested him to report that it was a fit case to be referred as false and issue proceedings accordingly. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a copy of the said report was forwarded to the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Act-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru. At that stage, the first respondent having not satisfied with the investigation report submitted by the third respondent, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eluru Sub Division, to investigate into Crime No.28 of 2003 afresh and submit a report. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once there was a report submitted by the Investigation Officer, there is no power conferred on the respondents to order re-investigation by appointing another Investigation Officer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.CHANDRASEKHAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[1]. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, the third respondent while admitting that there was a first investigation report, in which, the allegations against the petitioners were found to be false, stated that further investigation is ordered by the Superintendent of Police by appointing Sri B.Peddaiah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eluru Sub Division, as Investigation Officer. He further stated that after issuance of proceedings by the first respondent, the complainant and his mother were examined and their statements were recorded. He further stated that even after re-investigation, no case was made out insofar as petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were concerned and there was a prima facie case against petitioner Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, petitioners 4 and 5 were arrested on 05.02.2005 and produced before the learned Magistrate. He also stated that further steps could not be taken in view of pendency of the writ petition. The writ petitioners seek directions to the respondents not to proceed further with regard to Crime No.28 of 2003 on the ground that once investigation is done with regard to a crime and report is filed, further investigation cannot be done. If any final report is filed contrary to the report filed at the first instance, after investigation, it is always open to the petitioners to put forth their objections before the learned Magistrate, but even before the final report is filed, the petitioners cannot seek directions to prohibit the respondents from respondent- investigating into the crime. When the investigation is in progress, any direction to the respondents will amount to interfering with the process of investigation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case on hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioners, so as to interdict the proceedings at this stage by entertaining the present writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the writ petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for. However, it is made clear that if any report is filed pursuant to the re-investigation, it is open to the petitioners to put forth their objections and if any such objections are filed, the competent Magistrate shall look into the objections and pass appropriate orders thereon. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st DECEMBER, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in four days. kvni [1] (1998) 5 SCC 223