Judgment :- The petitioner being the defacto complainant in Crime No. 36 of 2003 on the file of the third respondent herein and C.C.No.207 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial magistrate, polur has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of criminal procedure seeking a direction to the first respondent to depute the competent officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police as contemplated in Rule 7 of the scheduled caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Rules, 1955 to conduct further investigation in crime No.36 of 2003 on the file of the third respondent herein which is the subject matter of C.C.No.207 of 2003, before the Judicial magistrate, polur and to to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take effective steps to provided relief to the petitioner and other victims subjected to atrocity as per the schedule to Annexure-1 of the Schedules Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. 2. Mr. P. Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 20.1.2003 at about 6.00 P.m., respondent Nos.4 to 12 in the Criminal original petition along with others attacked the revision petitioner, his brothers and father by abusing their community and thereby committed offence which would attract the provisions of I. P. C. and the provisions of Schedules Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act and the rules framed thereunder. However, it was compromised by the people in the village. Subsequently, on 20.1.2003 at about 8 p. m. the aforesaid respondents 4 to 12 along with others picked up quarrel against the petitioner and his family members and assaulted and caused injuries. Due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, his two brothers and his father they were admitted in the hospital on 20.1.2003. On the third respondent police station came to the hospital on 20.1.2003. On the same day at about 2.00P.M., the police officials attached to the third respondent police station came to the hospital and recorded he statement of the petitioner. The petitioner and others were discharged from the hospital on 21. 2003. The case was registered by the second respondent under sections 147, 148, 341,323,324 of IPC r/w. Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1989, in Crime No.35 of 2003 on 21. 2003. The petitioner and others were discharged from the hospital on 21. 2003. The case was registered by the second respondent under sections 147, 148, 341,323,324 of IPC r/w. Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1989, in Crime No.35 of 2003 on 21. 2003. However, for the reasons best known to the second respondent, the F.I.R was subsequently altered by deleting the provisions under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1989 which is against law and therefore, the petitioner herein has filed this Criminal Original petition challenging the said order of altering the F.I.R. deleting the relevant provisions of Scheduled caste and the Schedules Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act on the same day. 3. Mr.Paul Noble Deva Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for R1 to R3, submitted that there was no statement given by any witness so as to attract Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules,1989, , hence the second respondent, Deputy Superintendent of police, polur Range altered the F.I.R. The learned Government Advocate has not denied the fact that the petitioner herein who was the defacto complainant, has categorically stated in his complaint that the respondents 4 to 12 had abused the petitioner and his two brothers and his father since they belong to Arunthathiyarcommunity of Scheduled caste and also caused injuries so as to attract the provisions of Scheduled caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act and further, learned Counsel appearing for R1 to R3 has not disputed the fact that the petitioner has given statement before the second respondent that the respondents 4 to 12 had abused the petitioner and his family member, by specifically abusing their caste. When the petitioner/ defacto complainant himself has given statement apart from his Written complaint about the alleged occurrence which would attract the provisions of 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and the scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1989. The second respondent, Deputy Superintendent of police could not have altered the F.I.R. that deleting the provisions under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act without conducting proper investigation. The second respondent, Deputy Superintendent of police could not have altered the F.I.R. that deleting the provisions under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act without conducting proper investigation. On the facts and circumstances the materials could have been placed before the competent court and left it to the discretion of the court as per section 216 of the Code of Criminal procedure, to alter the change if need be and not by the second respondent, by himself. As there is prima facie materials to attract the provisions of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act for registering the F.I.R, I am of the view that the procedure followed by the second respondent for deleting the provision under the special Act is against law. 4. The learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that charge sheet has been filed on 20.9.2003 against the respondents 4 to 12 under Section 147,148, 341, 323,324 of IPC r/w. 149 IPC. However, as there is a prima facie case made out in the complaint given by the petitioner to attract Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1989. I am of the view that the alteration of F.I.R. deleting the provisions under the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act by the second respondent is illegal and on that score, the Criminal Original petition has to be allowed. 5. In the result, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to depute a competent authority not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police as contemplated in Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, to take further investigation in Crime No.36 of 2003 on the file of the third respondent herein and proceed further according to law. The respondents 1 to 3 are also directed to take effective steps to provide relief to the petitioner and other victims of atrocity as per the Schedule to Annexure-1 of the scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 if offence under the special Act is established. The respondents 1 to 3 shall report the compliance of first direction to the registry of this Court, within three months from the date of this order. 6. The Criminal Original petition is allowed with the above direction. The respondents 1 to 3 shall report the compliance of first direction to the registry of this Court, within three months from the date of this order. 6. The Criminal Original petition is allowed with the above direction. Consequently, connected M. P. Is closed.