Judgment : The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents in not expeditiously investigating Crime No.108 of 2013 of Chebrolu Police Station, pertaining to the hurt, intimidation and abuse of the petitioner in the name of his caste, even after six months as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Castes. He filed the complaint, in Crime No.108 of 2013 dated 07.06.2013, alleging that he was assaulted and abused in the name of his caste by the accused on 14.04.2013. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by him, by way of the present Writ Petition, alleging that, despite Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 requiring investigation into offences, under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act), to be completed within thirty days, investigation in Crime No.108 of 2013 dated 07.06.2013 was not completed even by 31.12.2013. In the counter affidavit, filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the Investigating Officer had obtained legal opinion from the Additional Public Prosecutor, Special Sessions Court for SC/ST cases, that the case be referred as false. A copy of the opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor is enclosed, along with the counter affidavit, wherein the evidence on record was analyzed and it was opined that, as per the evidence collected in the case, it could be referred as false. As investigation into offences, both under the Indian Penal Code and the Act, are in the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer, this Court called for a report from the first respondent whether there was any legal sanction for the police officers to seek a legal opinion, from the public prosecutors, on whether or not the statements of witnesses, recorded during the course of investigation, make out a case for filing a charge sheet. In his report dated 03.02.2014, the first respondent admits that the Public Prosecutors lack the power to give such opinions; as a matter of routine, and to overcome legal complications, if any, in most of the complicated cases, Investigating Officers were seeking legal opinion though there was no necessity for them to do so; a legal opinion is not binding, and the Investigating Officer should complete investigation on the basis of the statements of witnesses and the evidence adduced during the course of investigation, either oral or documentary; and must, thereafter, file an appropriate report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Police has expresses apology on behalf of his subordinate for having sought a legal opinion from the special public prosecutor. This Court, by its order dated 12.02.2014, sought the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh on whether the provisions of the Cr.P.C, or any other law in force, justified the Investigating Officer seeking the legal opinion of the Public Prosecutor on facts, more particularly whether or not the evidence on record warranted a charge sheet being filed. The Learned Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu (2000 Crl.L.J. 2453 (1)(SC); M. Satyanarayanan v. Govt. of A.P. GAD ( 1997 (3) ALD 784 (DB) and Ch. Siddaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 1997 (3) ALD 395 (DB), stated that investigation, into a complaint alleging commission of a cognizable offence, is in the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer; and neither were the Investigating Officers justified in seeking legal opinion, nor were the Public Prosecutors required to give their legal opinion, in such matters. A vital role is assigned by the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Officer in-charge of a Police Station. Under Section 36 Cr.P.C. a Police Officer, superior in rank to an Officer in charge of a police station, is recognised to have the powers, of the Officer in charge of the police station, through out the local area to which they are appointed. (Ch. Siddaiah3). The power of investigation is vested entirely in the officer in-charge of a police station. He, or his superior, must investigate the offence, collect evidence and file the police report. Investigation includes formation of opinion by him whether the material collected is sufficient to place the case before the Magistrate against the accused for trail, or for filing of a deferred report. He, or his superior, must investigate the offence, collect evidence and file the police report. Investigation includes formation of opinion by him whether the material collected is sufficient to place the case before the Magistrate against the accused for trail, or for filing of a deferred report. There is no provision in the Code empowering any officer, other than the officer in-charge of a police station, to file the police report, except his superiors. Whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not, for filing the report, is within the jurisdiction of the investigating officer and his superior officer subject to the control of the Magistrate. No one else can interfere with the discretion of formation of opinion. (M. Satyanarayana (supra). A Public Prosecutor is appointed, under Section 24 Cr.P.C, for conducting prosecutions, appeals or other proceedings in the Court. He has also the power to withdraw any case from prosecution with the consent of the Court. He is an officer of the court, and is not involved in investigation. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. neither supports nor sponsors a combined operation between the investigating officer and the Public Prosecutor for filing the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the Court. (R. Sarala (supra). Investigation and prosecution are two different facets in the administration of criminal justice. The role of a Public Prosecutor is inside the court, whereas investigation is outside it. Normally the role of the Public Prosecutor commences after the investigating agency presents the case in the court on culmination of investigation. Its exception is that the Public Prosecutor may have to deal with bail applications moved by the parties concerned at any stage. Involving the Public Prosecutor in investigation is not only unjudicious but is also pernicious in law. The power of the officer in charge of the police station, under Sections 154 to 173 Cr.P.C, is subject only to the supervision of his superiors as envisaged in Section 36 Cr.P.C. There is no stage during which the investigating officer is legally obliged to take the opinion of a Public Prosecutor or any other authority. (R. Sarala (supra). The power of the officer in charge of the police station, under Sections 154 to 173 Cr.P.C, is subject only to the supervision of his superiors as envisaged in Section 36 Cr.P.C. There is no stage during which the investigating officer is legally obliged to take the opinion of a Public Prosecutor or any other authority. (R. Sarala (supra). As investigation, into complaints alleging commission of cognizable offences, is in the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer, he is not justified in seeking the legal opinion of the Public Prosecutor on whether or not the evidence, collected during the course of investigation, justifies a charge sheet being filed. As several such cases, of legal opinions being sought from and given by the Public Prosecutors, have come to the notice of this Court and as the public prosecutors, appointed by the State Government under Sections 24(3) and (8) Cr.P.C, are subordinate to the Director of Prosecutions in terms of Section 25-A(6) Cr.P.C, the Director General of Police shall forthwith issue instructions to the Director of Prosecutions to make the public prosecutors, in the district and subordinate courts, aware of the law declared by the Supreme Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments; and that they should refrain from giving their legal opinion on whether or not the evidence collected, by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation necessitates a charge sheet being filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. As the Inspector General of Police, by proceedings dated 26.02.2014, has accorded permission to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur to refer the case in Crime No.108 of 2013 as false; and, pursuant thereto, a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was filed before the competent Magistrate; the cause in the Writ Petition does not necessitate any further adjudication. The remedy which the petitioner has, on a failure report now having been filed by the Investigation Officer, is to approach the competent Magistrate for redressal of his grievance. Leaving it open to the petitioner to do so, the Writ Petition is closed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.