The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.15486 of 2010 Dated 4th August, 2010 Between: Annemalla Kondala Rao …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., and 10 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 11: Mr.Badana Bhaskara Rao Counsel for respondent No.4: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2, in issuing proceedings, dated 15-03-2010, deleting Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) from Crime No.15 of 2010 on the file of respondent No.5-Madhira Town Police Station, as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira, Khammam District, to return the chargesheet in CC.No.351 of 2010 to enable respondent No.3 to conduct a fresh enquiry by including the charge under the Act. The petitioner lodged a report against respondent Nos.6 to 11 alleging that they have committed certain offences including the one under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. It appears that respondent No.3 investigated the offence relating to the Act and requested respondent No.2 for permission to delete Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act from the above-said Crime and file a chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). The said request was accepted by respondent No.2 vide his memo, dated 15-03-2010. Accordingly, respondent No.5 filed chargesheet before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira, and the case was taken cognizance as CC.No.351 of 2010 by the said Court for the offences under Sections 448 and 353 IPC. The grievances of the petitioner, as projected in his affidavit and put forth by Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, are that, (1) the very deletion of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act from the chargesheet is apparently mala fide (2) respondent No.2 has no power and authority to permit the investigation officer to delete the very provision from the chargesheet vide his Memo, dated 15-03-2010 and (3) respondent No.5 has no power or authority to file chargesheet in a case, which was investigated by respondent No.3 in terms of Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules framed under the Act. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 11. As regards the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the deletion of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act from the chargesheet, he is entitled to file a protest petition and raise all legally permissible objections before the jurisdictional Magistrate for taking appropriate decision on the basis of the material placed before him by the investigating officer. If, on the basis of such material, the jurisdictional Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the said material discloses of commission of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act by respondent Nos.6 to 11, he shall commit the case to the special Court competent to try the case under the Act. Conversely, if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the material available on record does not disclose commission of an offence under the said provision by respondent Nos.6 to 11, he shall proceed with the case on the basis of the chargesheet filed by respondent No.5. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to make an application in this regard and the learned jurisdictional Magistrate shall, after putting respondent Nos.6 to 11 on notice, take an appropriate decision as indicated above. With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Memo, dated 15-03-2010, issued by respondent No.2 cannot be sustained, I am of the opinion that respondent No.2, being the superior Police Officer, is entitled to permit the investigation officer to delete any provision from the chargesheet on the basis of the report submitted by the latter. There is no bar under the provisions of the Act on the Police Officer from granting such a permission. However, the decision to delete any such provision from the chargesheet is always subject to the right of the complainant, to be questioned before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As memo, dated 15- 03-2010, is not final and the same is subject to adjudication by the competent criminal Court, I do not find any illegality in Memo, dated 15-03-2010, issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner is entitled to convince the jurisdictional Magistrate that deletion of the said provision from the chargesheet is illegal and improper. Coming to the third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, consequent on Memo, dated 15-03-2010, respondent No.3 issued Memo, dated 18-03- 2010, instructing respondent No.5 to make investigation with respect to the other charges under the IPC., collect suitable evidence and arrest the accused in the above- said Crime. In my opinion, once the accusation under the provisions of the Act ceases to exist, respondent No.5 is entitled to make investigation in respect of the offences falling under the provisions of the IPC and therefore, I do not find any illegality in memo, dated 18-03-2010, issued by respondent No.3. In the light of the discussion undertaken above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to file an appropriate petition before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira, raising all legally permissible objections against deletion of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act from the chargesheet. As already directed above, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate shall take appropriate decision in this regard after notice to respondent Nos.6 to 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.19505 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 4th August, 2010 lur