Judgment :- 1. This petition is filed, seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to register a case against the respondents 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the Scheduled castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and nominate an officer above the rank of the 2nd respondent as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, on coming to know that seven persons, who belong to scheduled caste community were taken into custody by the third respondent police, went to the police station and sought for details from the Inspector of police regarding the case against those persons, a Head Constable by name subbiah, assaulted these persons and when the petitioner questioned the same, it is alleged that the Head Constable slapped the petitioner on his cheek and abused him by mentioning his community name. The petitioner went to the hospital and after treatment, a complaint was given to the 2nd respondent. Since the said complaint has not been registered for a properly investigation in accordance with law, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for a direction to register a case. 3. per contra, the learned Additional public prosecutor submits that the 2nd respondent has conducted an enquiry with the assistance of the 3rd respondent by receiving the complaint in C.S.R. No. 91 of 2009 and after examination of witnesses, enquiry has been closed since offence alleged has not been make out. 4. A Status Report dated 16.12.2009 to this effect has been filed by the 2nd respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, questioning the correctness of the enquiry conducted, submits that the 2nd respondent should have conducted investigation by himself and cited Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in support of his contention. 6. On perusal of the status report, it appears that the witnesses were examined by the 3rd respondent, who is The Inspector of police, Roshanai police Station, Tindivanam. 6. On perusal of the status report, it appears that the witnesses were examined by the 3rd respondent, who is The Inspector of police, Roshanai police Station, Tindivanam. By relying a Judgment reported in 2006 (1) MWN (Cr.) 330 (SC) (Ramesh Kumari VS State (N.C.T of Delhi and Ors), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case should have been registered and investigated by a competent officer Viz., by the 2nd respondent. 7. In the case on hand, admittedly, no case was registered but an enquiry has been conducted and on conclusion of the enquiry, the case has been closed as ‘mistake of fact’. 8. In view of the procedural violation and seriousness of the offence alleged, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent may register a case and conduct proper investigation and may come to a conclusion one way or the other. 9. with the above direction. The petition is disposed of.