Judgment : This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. to direct the 1st respondent viz., Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, District at Villupuram to depute a Deputy Superintendent of Police, to investigate the complaint in Crime No.468 of 1995 on the file of the 2nd respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District and take appropriate steps and instruct the Station House Officer to submit a copy of the F.I.R. only to the Special Court and issue any other direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this matter. 2. The material allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of this petition’ are as follows: On 17.10.1995 at about 12.00 noon there was a clash between the workers employed by Devi Rock Quarry Co., and workmen of Krishna Gounder Quarry Company in Palamukkal hill. The petitioners elder brother Selvam intervened to pacify the fighting workers, and he was beaten, and abusive language was used against him mentioning the caste name. He got injured in his right hand. When the petitioner intervened, he was also attacked by the supporters of Krishna. The petitioner made a complaint to the 2nd respondent and the complaint was registered on 17.10.1995 in Crime No.468 of 1995 under Secs.147, 294(b) and 323, I.P.C. read with Sec.3(h) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989. The petitioner was sent to the hospital with a memo by the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint, When the petitioner was going to the hospital with Marimuthu on his two wheeler, both was arrested by the police near Manur village on the main road. On the next day 18.10.1995 both were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam and both were remanded to judicial custody and later both came out on bail granted by the High Court. One Lakshmanan son of Ramaswamy Gounder, Palamukkal Village, made a complaint in Crime No.467 of 1995 under Secs.147, 148, 323, 294, 307 and 506(ii), I.P.C. on 17.10.1995 against the petitioner, his brother and named 14 others and the police took the petitioner into custody while the petitioner was going to the hospital as mentioned above. One Lakshmanan son of Ramaswamy Gounder, Palamukkal Village, made a complaint in Crime No.467 of 1995 under Secs.147, 148, 323, 294, 307 and 506(ii), I.P.C. on 17.10.1995 against the petitioner, his brother and named 14 others and the police took the petitioner into custody while the petitioner was going to the hospital as mentioned above. But the petitioners complaint in Crime No.468 of 1995 was treated with hostile discrimination and it reveals the sorry state of affairs practised by Mr.K.Kaliaperumal, the Inspector of Police who belongs to Vanniya community. On the next day i.e., on 18.10.1995, Mr.K.Kaliaperumal, the Inspector of Police rushed to the court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam with an application for getting the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 deleted from the First Information Report in Crime No.468 of 1995. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate allowed it and the accused were granted bail on that day itself as if the offence under sections of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 was not made out as per the investigation. The Station House Officers are not properly instructed by the higher and the Government to deal with the cases which attract the provisions of Act 33 of 1989. Most of the Station House Officers are violating the law by mechanically forwarding the copy of the F.I.R. in such cases to the Court of Judicial Magistrate. This practice is not authorised by Law. Under the provisions of the Act 33 of 1989 the F.I.R. should be submitted to the Special Court viz., the District and Sessions Court, and this is being violated on very many occasions. In the petitioners complaint exactly the same practice was adopted and the Inspector went to the extent of getting the provision of law of the said Act removed from the F.I.R. So far no action was taken and the said copy of the F.I.R. was submitting by the 2nd respondent to the court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam instead of submitting the same to the Special Court, which is against law. Hence this petition. 3. Hence this petition. 3. The 2nd respondent viz., the Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station has filed objections as well as additional objections stating as follows: The petitioner- Ramu appeared on 17.10.1995 at 15.30 hours before the Sub Inspector of Police, Brammadesam and lodged a written complaint against 9 persons stating that due to the boundary dispute between two quarries the accused therein shouted at him by abusing the caste name and also assaulted him. Immediately the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.468 of 1995 for offences under Secs.147, 294 (b) and 323, I.P.C. read with Sec.3(ii) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Sub-Inspector of Police immediately took up investigation and the Sub-Inspector of Police during the course of investigation found that one Krishnan, Ramdoss, Tirumalai and Sampath were implicated unnecessarily in this case and dropped the proceedings against these accused and further investigation by the same Sub-Inspector of Police revealed that these accused did not abuse the petitioner herein by his caste name and hence the Sub-Inspector of Police dropped the offence under Sec.3(ii) of SC/ST Act and thought it fit to proceed against the remaining accused for offences under Secs.147, 294 (b) and 323323 of I.P.C. Immediately the Inspector of Police took up the investigation and arrested these accused on 18.10.1995 and remanded them before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Investigation had been completed in a very fair manner and the case is ready to be charge-sheeted. The petitioner abovenamed appeared before the 2nd respondent Police Station on 16.6.1997 and stated that he gave a complaint on 17.10.1995 as against one Lakshmanan and four others and the same has been registered in Crime No.468 of 1995 for offences under Secs.147,294 and 323 of I.P.C. The counter petitioner gave a complaint and that was also registered as Crime No.467 of 1995 for offences under Sec.147, 148, 341, 323, 324and 307, I.P.C. Now a peace committee has been constituted in the native village of the petitioner. Both the petitioner and counter petitioners belong to SC/ST community. The petitioner also gave an undertaking that he will prefer an application before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam to seek his remedies. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the point that arises for determination in this petition is to what relief the petitioner is entitled. 5. Both the petitioner and counter petitioners belong to SC/ST community. The petitioner also gave an undertaking that he will prefer an application before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam to seek his remedies. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the point that arises for determination in this petition is to what relief the petitioner is entitled. 5. Point: The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the provisions of law mentioned in Sec.2(d) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-Act 33 of 1989 shortly called as the Act and also the provisions in Sec.14 of the said Act and contended that the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case in the present matter and the Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation have no jurisdiction or authority at all to file the F.I.R. before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam and to take up investigation and the F.I.R. should have been filed only before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram which is the Special Court constituted by virtue of Sec.14 of the said Act. 6. This provisions of Law and the factual submissions made by the petitioners counsel were not disputed by the learned Government Advocate. 7. Sec.2(d) of the abovesaid Act states that Special Court mean a court of Sessions specified in Sec.14 of the said act. Sec.14 of the said Act states as follows: “For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the official Gazette, specify for each District Court of Sessions to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act.” 8. Therefore in the light of the above provisions of law, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. should have been filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judges court at Villupuram is well found and the Sub-Inspector of Police or the Inspector of Police have no power, much less any limited power, to file the F.I.R. before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam. In view of the specific provision of Act 33 of 1989, the Sub Inspector of Police. In view of the specific provision of Act 33 of 1989, the Sub Inspector of Police. Brammadesam Police Station, who took up investigation initially in this matter has no authority at all to file a petition to delete the provision of Sec.3(ii) of the said Act, 1989 as stated in the objections filed in this petition on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore it is just and necessary that the F.I.R. or the charge sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam have to be ordered to be transferred to the file of the Principal-District and Sessions Judge at Villupuram for disposal in accordance with law by invoking the powers of High Court under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. 9. The learned Government Advocate contended on behalf of the prosecution that in as much as the provision of law in Sec.3 of the abovesaid Act has been dropped or deleted and only offences under the Indian Penal Code are available for trial, the F.I.R. or the charge-sheet need not be ordered to be transferred, I am unable to uphold the above contention of the learned Government Advocate because initially and subsequently the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case and who dropped the offence under Sec.3 of the abovesaid Act, has no power at all to file the F.I.R. or the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate and to drop Sec.3 of Act 33 of 1989 which can be done only in the charge-sheet, and it is an illegality and not an irregularity, and the illegality already committed cannot be cured by subsequent investigation made by him making cut a case of one of offences triable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is not an irregularity which can be set right or regularised by the subsequent act of the Investigating agency by deleting the provision of the Act 33 of 1989 and making it as a case triable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code only consequently to the investigation that has been done in this case. 10. Now taking up the question, who can investigate the matter of this nature under the Act 33 of 1989, Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995 states as follows: “An offence committed under Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. 10. Now taking up the question, who can investigate the matter of this nature under the Act 33 of 1989, Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995 states as follows: “An offence committed under Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice and to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.” 11. So in view of Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995 the Deputy Superintendent of Police nominated by the Director General of Police or by the Superintendent of Police can only investigate into the matter and file a final report. The learned Government Advocates stated that after completing the investigation a charge sheet can only be filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam because the offences of I.P.C. are only available for trial. Notwithstanding the same, the Deputy Superintendent of Police to be nominated by the Superintendent of Police of Villupuram District can make further investigation under Sec.173 (8) of Crl.P.C. and can file a further report or additional charge sheet, if further investigation of the case can make out prima facie an offence under Sec.3 of the abovesaid Act 33 of 1989, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram. Therefore the filing of any final report before the Magistrates Court cannot be a bar for further investigation in this case in accordance with law. Therefore the filing of any final report before the Magistrates Court cannot be a bar for further investigation in this case in accordance with law. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C, and a direction has to be issued to the 1st respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District to appoint a Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the complaint in Crime No.468 of 1995 on the file of the 2nd respondent, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall take appropriate steps for filing the charge sheet or additional charge sheet in Crime No.468 of 1995 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram and a further direction is issued to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam to transfer the case records in Crime No.468 of 1995 to the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge Villupuram and on receipt of the records from the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, -Villupuram being the Judge of the Special Court constituted under the Act 33 of 1989 shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, and I answer the point accordingly in favour of the petitioner. 12. In the result the petition is allowed. The 1st respondent herein viz., the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District is directed to depute a Deputy Superintendent of Police as mentioned in Rule. 7 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995 to investigate the complaint in Crime No.468 of 1995 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police Station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police so appointed shall take appropriate steps for filing the charge sheet or additional charge sheet before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram being the Special Court under Central Act 33 of 1989. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam is directed to transfer the records in Crime No.468 of 1995 of the 2nd respondent police station to the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram and on receipt of the records from the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam the Principal District and Sessions Judge Villupuram being the Judge of the Special Court constitute under the Central Act No.33 of 1989, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law and take up follow up action in this case after the filing of final report or additional final report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police so nominated by the 1st respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, District.