Investigation of offences under the S.C. and S.T. Act must be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police who is specifically appointed by the State Government, as per Rule 7 of the S.C. and S.T. Rules.

Petitioner/Accused in CC 215 of 1998 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings pending against him.

2. The case in brief is as follows :

One Periampillai gave a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he had abused him by calling his caste name. On the said complaint, the respondent-Police registered a case on Crime No. 12/95 under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter called as S.C. and S.T. Act) and the case was investigated by the Police and ultimately, the case was referred. He sent petitions to higher officials for proper investigation and dropping of the case. With the result, the respondent-Police after investigation has not only referred the case but also sent intimation to the petitioner stating that the case had been referred. While so, it seems that the police have re-opened the case on the pretext of making further investigation and found out materials to file a charge-sheet against him for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. Act.

3. The first informant had pledged his sovereign gold jewel to the petitioner and borrowed Rs. 700/- from him. About few days prior to the date of occurrence, the first informant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner and asked for the return of the gold jewel. But the petitioner had evaded to return the same. On 23-6-95 when the petitioner was coming along the bus stop of the colony, the first informant who came along with one Panneerselvam, Murugesan and Kalyani, demanded the petitioner to return back the jewel. He had also declared by calling him in his community. He had also used filthy words and attempted to beat him. The entire allegations even if they are taken as true, no offence can be said to have been made out and the case has to be quashed.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Cri. side) opposed the petition and stated that no communication whatseover was sent either to the petitioner or to the Court, stating that the case has been referred. The records from the Court was also sent for and there is no material that any such report was sent. However, perusal of the case diary indicated that there is a letter in the case diary showing that action was dropped, signed by the Inspector of Police, but the same has not been sent to the Court. He further pointed out even assuming that the Inspector of Police had referred the same, nothing prevented the respondent from further investigating the case under section 177(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the materials now projected by the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the proceedings.

5. Heard the learned counsel of both sides.

6. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 215/98 on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) Madurai. He had been charged for an offence under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stated that even if it is taken as true, no prima facie case is made out for the offence. In the complaint, the specific caste of the first informant has not been mentioned. Originally on the complaint, a case under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. Act was registered and finally the case was referred as mistake of fact by one Inspector of Police Muthuvelan and after dropping the same, it is illegal and unwarranted to re-open the case. Though a superior Police Officer can further investigate in a case of this nature, the entire records of the case consisting of 162 statements of witnesses and charge-sheet do not show that there was any further investigation having been permitted to be conducted especially after the case was earlier investigated and referred. The only course open to the police is to serve the referred notice on the first informant and intimate the said result. Moreover, only a Deputy Superintendent of Police can i