ORDER
P.K. Misra, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to register the complaint of the petitioner under the provisions of Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with the provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code for various offences allegedly committed by the accused persons.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made in the writ petition and in the complaint. However, it is not denied that a complaint has been received nor it is denied that the complaint has not been formally registered.
4. Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 contemplates the recording of the F.I.R. Sub-rule (3) to Rule 5 enabled the person aggrieved to send the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned if the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station refuses to record the information referred to in Sub-rule (1). It is apparent in the present case that the petitioner has also taken recourse to Sub-rule (3) to Rule 5 of the Rules. Since complaint has been made, it was the duty of the Police Officer in-charge of the Police Station to register the same and thereafter, to investigate into the matter in accordance with law. Since this statutory duly had not been performed, I direct the respondents to act upon the complaint filed by the petitioner and take steps in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act as well as in the Rules. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed regarding the merits of the contentions raised and the matter has to be investigated into by the concerned Police Officer in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in the present order.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted about the return of articles.
6. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated as follows:
…As mentioned earlier, all the belongings of the petitioner as listed in the mahazar are in the safe custody of the Tahsildar, Rajapalayam.
It is not disputed that the articles belong to the petitioner. The respondents do not claim any ownership over those articles. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I direct that the belongings listed in the mahazar and in the custody of the Tahsildar, Rajapalayam should be returned to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 20225 of 1997 is closed.