ORDER Alleging violation of the interim order granted by this Court dated 27 -7 -2006 in Criminal Petition No. 3260 of 2006 the present contempt petition is filed. 2. The complainant who was the accused had filed the aforesaid criminal petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash the investigation and proceedings against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 355, 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. While considering the case by the order dated 27-7-2006, this Court directed ad-interim order staying the investigation in Crime No.71 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bijapur. It is the complaint of the complainant that inspite of the interim order granted on 27-7-2006 and the same was received by the respondents by 9-8-2006, investigation has been carried out thereafter and charge-sheet has been filed on 22-8-2006. In this regard, we had secured the records pertaining to Crime No. 71 of 2006 of Devara Hipparagi Police Station. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the investigation was completed on 24-7-2006 and thereafter immediately as the charge-sheets of the offence in the case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are required to be filed within 30 days mandatorily, the concerned Investigating Officer has sent the investigation material and charge-sheet to the Public Prosecutor and thereafter, the charge-sheet has been filed on 22-8-2006. 4. Since the investigation was complete by 24-7-2006 as revealed from the records of the police station, in our view, prima facie there is no violation of any order. Nevertheless it is contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that while submitting the charge-sheet certain dates of recording of the statements have been antedated by the Investigating Officers and even though the investigation was continued after 27-7-2006, false affidavit has been filed by them by way of counter. Basically the argument of the learned Counsel is that the act of filing of charge-sheet itself is violative of interim order granted on 27-7-2006. Basically the argument of the learned Counsel is that the act of filing of charge-sheet itself is violative of interim order granted on 27-7-2006. So far as filing of charge-sheet is concerned, it will be prepared and filed only after investigation is over and as such, inspite of the interim order granted by this Court dated 27-7-2006 which was to the limited effect of stopping the investigation and since as the records reveal that the investigation was over by then, there was no impediment for the respondent to file charge-sheet. Hence, we are of the view that the charge-sheet filed on 22-8-2006 does not violate the interim order granted on 27-7-2006. 5. So far as the other contention of antedating is concerned, there is absolutely no material placed by the complainant before this Court and it is only a submission of the complainant. On the other hand, a perusal of the records, of the Police Station in Crime No. 71 of 2006 reveal that no such antedating has taken place and as such the allegations are far from truth. On this ground also we find no merit in the contempt petition. As such, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected. In our view, this contempt petition is filed on malicious and false grounds only to harass the respondent-police officials doing their duty. Hence, while dismissing the contempt petition, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).