IMPORTANT POINT
Police has power to make further investigation and send another report to Magistrate even though earlier report was filed requesting magistrate to drop the matter and same was dropped.

ORDER

M. Karpagavinayagam, J. - This is an application to quash the entire proceedings pending in P.R.C. No. 6 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi filed by the petitioners A1 to A5.

2. The petitioners were charge-sheeted on 31-12-1993 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 395, 201, 467, 471 and 109, IPC. The following is the gist of the charge-sheet: -

“The first petitioner A1 was the sitting MLA for Kinathukadavu constituency in 1983. The second petitioner A2 is the youndger son and fourth petitioner is the younger brother of A1. The third pedtitioner A3 was an accountant under the first petitioner. The fifth petitioner A5 was working as Tahasildar at Pollachi. During the last week of January, 1983 the petitioners 1 to 3 and approvers Sugumaran and Rathinasamy hatched a criminal conspiracy at the house of the first petitioner at Negaman by agrreing to do certain actsw of dacoity by cutting the two live rose - wood trees standing in Government poromboke lands at Sankarayapuram village in Pollachi Taluk In pursuance of the said conspiracy, sec ond petitioner and third petitioner along with approves Sugumaran and Rathinasamy and other paid workers went to the said village on the night of the next day and cut the said two live rose - wood trees which werewortgh about Rs. 34, 398/- standing in Government porromboke land. Thereupon, on 28-3-1983 at about 11 a.m., at the instigation of the first petitioner, the witnesses Duruivelu and Gurunadhan came with false names of Antony and Mani respectively and gave a false joint statement stating that they cut the trees. Knowing fully well that they were ficitious persons, the fifth petioner Tahsildar recorded false stetments and sent the same to the Taluk Office, pollachi purporting to be the compounding statement Again a week prior to 3-11-1983, at the instigation of the first petitioner, the petitioner 2 and 3 with approver Rathinasamy and others cut the roots and stumps of the two rose - wood trees and removed and burnt them along with the remnents of the cut branches of those trees and caused the said evidence to disappear with the intention of screening the above said offenders of dacoity from legal punishment.”

3. Regarding the occurrence that took place in January. 1983, a case was registered in Crime No. 36 of 1983 on 192-1983 by the Kinat hukadavu Police on the complaint given by the Tahsildar. Pollachi. For the second occurrence which took place a week prior to on 3-11-1983, another case was registered in Crime No. 191 of 1983 under Section 379. IPC by the Kinathukadavu Police Station on 17-11-1983. On 30-4-1986. the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II. Pollachi dropped the matter under Crime

No. 36 of 1983 under Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code since the limitation period of three years had expired. But however on coming to know of the fresh materials in pursuance of the order of the Government on the application filed by the Police the case which was closed on 30-4-1986 was reopened on 29-7-1986 to enable the Police to take up further investigation. However the same was closed as undetected on 28-9-1988. As regards the case in Crime No. 191 of 1983 which was registered on 17-11-1983, was closed as undetected on 19-4-1984. However the same was reopened on 8-6-1990 by the order of the Inspector General of Police (Crimes). Since the said case was found to have connection with the Crime No. 36/83 as per the directions of the Higher Officials of Police the petitioners filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II. Pollachi for reopening the case in Crime No. 36/83 also. The petition was ordered on 30-10-1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Pollachi. Thereafter the further investigation was commenced on 26-4-1991, on the fresh materials, which came to light. It was revealed during the course of further investigation that both the occurrences were taken place in pursuance of single conspiracy. So, a single charge-sh