( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent on the complaint filed by the 4th respondent culminating in the FAX message dated 8-2-1997 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st petitioner as illegal and consequential direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to refrain from acting on the complaint filed by the 4th respondent as the ingredients of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 and Section 506 read with section 341. P. C. are not attracted to the facts of the case.

( 2 ) NECESSARY facts which are relevant to the point in issue are referred hereunder: the 1st petitioner is the Bharat petroleum Corporation (hereinafter called as corporation )- Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are working as Officers in the 1st petitioner- corporation. The 4th respondent is also working in 1st petitioner-Corporation in the officer category. At his instance the proceedings were initiated against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. The 4th respondent was appointed as Officer in 1st petitioner- corporation on 26-6-1995. He was put on probation for a period of one year from 27-5-1995 to 26-5-1996. However, the officers were not satisfied with the duties of the 4th respondent, his probation was extended for six more months. Ultimately, the authorities found that he had not improved the performance and therefore, his probation was terminated by an Order dated 3-1-1997. On 8-1-1997 4th respondent filed a complaint before the police alleging that petitioners 2 to 4 committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (l) (x) of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the act ) read with Section 506 I. P. C. Upon such complaint, the police authorities-respondent No. 3 has registered the complaint in First Information Report noting the offence under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act read with Section 506 I. P. C. and motion was set in for investigating the complaint. At this point of time, the Writ petition was filed. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the 4th respondent had withdrawn the complaint and he was re-appointed in the Corporation. Therefore, taking these events, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by an Order dated 20-3-1998 directing the 3rd respondent- s. H. O. Malakapuram P. S. Visakhapatnam or the Investigating Officer of Cr. No. 3 of 1997 of the same Police Station to bear the aforesaid facts in mind and take necessary measures/steps to put an end to the controversy between the parties. However, subsequently, the matter was pursued by the authorities and charge-sheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thereupon, Miscellaneous Petition was moved by the petitioner to recall the Order dated 20-3-1998. Accordingly the order was recalled on 1-10-1998 and thus the entire matter is reheard afresh on merits.

( 3 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the ingredients as set out in Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act are not present in the complaint given by the 4th respondent and therefore, the authorities have no jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation of the case. He further submits that the alleged incident took place in the chambers of the Officers which was not within the public view and thus the provisions of sub-section (x) of Section 3 (1) are not attracted. Hence, if a prima facie case is not made out, this Court is empowered to interdict the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in state of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, m/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial magistrate. He also refers to the judgments reported in Chandra Poojari vs. State of karnataka, Karansingh vs. State of M. P. He submits that the sequence of events and the fact that the complaint was withdrawn by the 4th respondent itself estab