Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis the learned Govt. Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the R.6-defacto-complainant and perused the prayer in the writ petition with the supporting affidavit averments and other material on record. The prayer in the writ petition which reads as follows:-

to issue a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing the 4th respondent by Memo C.No.C4/327/SC-ST/2017, dated 25.11.2017, to file Charge Sheet in Crime No. 107/2017, though the 4th respondent after investigation forwarded the final report by C.No.246/DSP-SCST/KNL/2017, dated 04.10.2017, to the 2nd respondent to accord permission to refer the case as False in Crime No. 107/2017, registered u/sec.506,509,420 IPC and Section 3(i)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act) Amendment Act, 2015, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 16, and 21 and consequently set aside the Memo C.No. C4/327/SC-ST.2017, issued by the 3rd respondent further direction to the respondents to take steps as per law in FIR No. 107/2017, on the file of the 5th respondent, as otherwise myself and my family will suffer serious loss and life threat.

2. The sum and substance of the affidavit averments in support of the prayer in the writ petition are that the petitioner executed a lease deed bearing No.770/2014, dated 22.03.2014, in favor of 6th respondent with certain conditions including the rent from the date of execution of the lease deed for Rs.20,000/- p.m. and every 3 years the rent will be exceeded as mentioned in the lease deed and on the same day, the 6th respondent accepted the confirmation from the petitioner and executed a confirmation acceptance by agreeing that in case of failure to pay the monthly rent, the lease deed supra will be cancelled. Basing on the lease deed, the 6th respondent got LOI dated 06.04.2015 to set up retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Kurnool Town. The 6th respondent borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from the petitioner to her family necessities and executed a promissory note dated 22.03.2014 in his favor. In spite of demands, since the 6th respondent failed to repay the amount along with interest, the petitioner got issued legal notice dt.29.09.2016, demanding to repay the amount within 7 days and also issued quit notice dt.29.09.2016 for violation of the conditions in the lease deed for an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- for the period of 29 months and also intimated that the tenancy has been terminated from 01.10.2016 and to vacate the scheduled land and hand over the possession to him within one month from the date of receipt of the notice. Since the 6th respondent did not respond, the petitioner filed O.S.No.456 of 2016 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Kurnool, against the 6th respondent to decree the suit for an amount of Rs.5,59,239/- with interest at 12% p.a. and also filed another suit O.S.No.463 of 2016 to evict the 6th respondent from the plaint scheduled property including the recovery of Rs.5,80,000/- towards arrears of rent from 01.04.2014 to 01.10.2016. The 6th respondent who is a practicing Advocate, threatened the petitioner as she will foist a false cases against him as she belongs to SC community, if he interferes with her possession and insists to pay the rent as per the lease deed and also threatened to withdraw the suits. Being an Advocate, the 6th respondent instead of giving complaint before the 5th respondent-the SHO, Kurnool II Town Police Station(for short, the SHO), gave a false complaint before the R.3-the Superintendent of Police (for short the