ORDER : V. ESWARAIAH, J.:— This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash proceedings in Cr. No. 53 of 2005 of Tekkali Police Station, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 2. Petitioner is A-4 in Cr. No. 53 of 2005 of Tekkali Police Station. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a registered private limited company carrying on mining operations by obtaining necessary licences and leases from the State Government in respect of an extent of 15 hectares in Sy. No. 1 of Addukonda Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of 15 years in S. No. 1 of Addukonda village on 08.12.1997. It is stated that S. No. 1 of Addukonda village consists of about 2000 acres of land but the petitioner was granted lease and license for 15 hectares only and some others have also been granted leases. It is stated that the Director of Mines & Geology, transferred the lease in favour of M/s. Kali International Private Limited by order dated 05.01.2004 and in fact, the said Kali International has been carrying on mining operations in respect of the said land. It is further stated that the second respondent-complainant, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, stating that seven persons of Addukonda village complained to him to the effect that seven houses were sanctioned to Scheduled Community and their houses under construction cracked due to the use of high power blasting material by five mining operators in S. No. 46 and on the said complaint the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.04.2005 directing the said five persons, who are the accused, to show cause as to why their leases should not be cancelled as the houses under construction cracked due to blasting. It is stated that the second respondent has no authority even to issue show cause notice and the second respondent is not entitled to complain against the accused for the offences under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1984. 3. It is stated that the second respondent has no authority even to issue show cause notice and the second respondent is not entitled to complain against the accused for the offences under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1984. 3. It is further stated that the learned Magistrate on the complaint made by the second respondent - RDO, referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to enquire and report by order dated 21.04.2005 and accordingly the police registered a case in Cr. No. 53 of 2005 for the aforesaid offences. The said crime is sought to be quashed in this petition on the ground that the defacto-complaint has no right whatsoever to lodge a complaint without informing the Mining Department, which granted the lease for 15 years in respect of the said land and even if there are any violations or contraventions of the license and lease the defacto-complaint shall inform the Mining Department for taking appropriate action for cancellation of the lease but the RDO has no power or authority either for issuing a notice for canceling the lease or making a complaint under the Act. It is stated that the ingredients of the Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act are also not satisfied, therefore, the registration of crime for the said offences is unsustainable. 4. The issuance of show cause notice and other actions taken by the RDO may not be relevant for the purpose of making a complaint by the RDO under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Act and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act. A perusal of the private complaint filed by the second respondent goes to show that the five accused mentioned in the complaint are Granite Companies, who are operating the quarries by obtaining the leases from the Department of Mines and Geology in S. No. 1 of Addukonda Village of Meghavaram Panchayat of Tekkali Police Station limits. A perusal of the private complaint filed by the second respondent goes to show that the five accused mentioned in the complaint are Granite Companies, who are operating the quarries by obtaining the leases from the Department of Mines and Geology in S. No. 1 of Addukonda Village of Meghavaram Panchayat of Tekkali Police Station limits. L.Ws.6 to 13 i.e. seven residents of Nuvvuguddi village belonging to Scheduled Caste Community gave a representation to the RDO on 07.03.2005 stating that the Government has sanctioned pucca houses to them under RPH and IAY scheme, which are situated very nearer to the S. No. 46 of Addukonda quarry and they have constructed the houses up to lintel level and the walls and foundations were cracked and damaged due to the blasting at the quarries. It is stated that the accused are excavating the granite stones by using high power blasting explosive substances and blasting continuously day and night causing danger to life and damage to the property and the same was also published in Eenadu Daily Newspaper District Edition on 12.03.2005. 5. In view of the said complaint, the second respondent deputed the MRO and DEO, Tekkali to enquire into the matter and submit a report. Accordingly, after necessary inspection a report was submitted stating that the houses were damaged due to continuous blasting at the quarries very nearer to the village. It is further stated that the MRO also gave a report to the Station House Officer, Tekkali Police Station, Tekkali, to take necessary action against the accused but the police did not take any action against the accused. It is stated that the in spite of the request made to the accused to stop the blasting the accused made a deaf ear to the request and continued blasting. 6. The Sarpanch of Meghavaram Gram Panchayat filed a petition before the District Collector, Srikakulam on 04.04.2005 stating that their houses were damaged due to the blasting. On the said petition the District Collector instructed the RDO to make enquiry and take necessary action against the companies, which caused damage to the property of the ST people. The RDO himself visited the village and on 13.04.2005 inspection found that the foundations of the seven houses of ST people cracked due to blasting. It is stated that an enquiry has been made, submissions have been recorded and certain photographs have also been taken. The RDO himself visited the village and on 13.04.2005 inspection found that the foundations of the seven houses of ST people cracked due to blasting. It is stated that an enquiry has been made, submissions have been recorded and certain photographs have also been taken. Accordingly, the complaint was made before the learned Magistrate. 7. Though the complaint was made under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Act and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance but instead treating the said complaint as complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C referred the matter for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact, whenever a public servant makes a complaint under Section 200(a) Cr.P.C, without examining the public servant, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance, in the instant case instead of taking cognizance the matter was referred under Section 156(3) only. Under Section 190 Cr.P.C also upon a complaint received the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance but, however, in the instant case the complaint was only referred to the police under Section 156(3) and therefore, the contention that the RDO - second respondent is not entitled to file a complaint is unsustainable. 8. Though the petitioners are having valid licences and explosive licence for quarry, if they commit any mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that they shall thereby cause damage to any property belonging to the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, they shall be punishable under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Act. 9. Section 3(2)(iii) of the Act does not say that only a person not having mining licences when commits a mischief by fire or explosive substance knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause damage to the property of ST person is liable for punishment; but even a person having explosive substances and mining leases, commits mistake by explosive substances knowing it likely to cause damage to any property belonging to ST community is also liable for punishment. 10. 10. With regard to the other contention that RDO is not entitled to make a complaint, I am of the opinion that under Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules’) any person can inform the commission of offence; neither the Act nor the Rules stipulate that the persons belonging to ST and SC community alone are entitled to make complaint or furnish information of the commission of the offence under the Act. In the absence of any stipulation for making a complaint or furnishing information, I am of the opinion that under the Act anybody can set law into motion and in the instant case, the District Collector instructed the RDO to take appropriate action, in fact, the RDO after taking necessary steps requested the MRO to enquire and report and in spite of filing a complaint before the police no action has been taken. Therefore, filing a private complaint before the learned Magistrate is not illegal. 11. As per the aims and objects of the Act, the Act is not only enacted to prevent the commission of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but also for taking appropriate action for the offences. The Act and the Rules are made to protect the personal life and liberty of the members of the ST and SC community and their properties. However, if any action is taken in good faith under the Act the burden lies on the person to prove that the said act has been done in good faith but merely because the petitioners are said to have acted in good faith under the Mining Act there is no protection provided to them under Section 22 of the Act. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any illegality in referring the matter by the learned Magistrate to the police for report and investigation and registration of the case by the police. The criminal petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.