Accused cannot be proceeded for offence us 219 IPC.

The accused in C.C.No. 8338 of 1992 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras; have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.

2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners for offences punishable under Secs. 166, 219, 229, 342, 357, 384 and 500 read with 34, I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The complainant is owning properties worth few lakhs of rupees. He is holding position in many public bodies. He was a Commissioned Officer in the army. He is also a member of number of the International Social Organisations. On 9. 1992, at about 11.30 hours, he was informed over phone by his nephew K.O.George, a Central Government Employee that he was assaulted by three persons, two of them co-tenants and a son of the landlord at about 9.30 hours. The problem arose on account of the attempt of the landlord to forcibly evict his nephew due to his refusal to pay increase in rent. The complainant contacted the control room and gave message. Oil that day, at 9.45 p.m. the complainant received message from his nephew’s wife that when they went to K-2 Ayyanavaram police station to enquire about the fate of their complaint, George was arrested at the instance of the landlord by Inspector of Police Vittal Raman, the first accused herein and he was put in the lock-up. The said landlord is known to the first accused. The complainant rushed to the said police station, accompanied by his son and a male servant and reached the police station at 10.30 p.m. He saw his nephew, coming out of the police station, just then released on bail. George narrated his sufferings at the hands of the first accused who had abused him in filthiest lanugate He had directed one of the counter complainants to lodge a complaint alleging that he was abused with reference to his caste. The complainant went into the police station and met A-2 and enquired about the offence committed by George for which he was arrested and lodged in the lock-up. A-2 advised the complainant to meet A-1 as he had dealt with George. The complainant entered into the office of A1 and requested him to clarify the case against George. A-1 told him that the offence against George was under Sec. 75 of City Police Act. The complainant expressed his regret over his action in detaining George in the lock up for many hours, instead of releasing him on bail, on his own surety. A-1 got enraged and caught hold of his neck by the shirt and abused him in filthiest language. He dragged the complainant from his office towards lock-up. He told A-2 and others to search the complainant and put him in the lock up and referred him as in the presence of his people and others. The complainant told A-1 that he was formerly a commissioned officer in the rank of Major and pointed out his status and reputation. He also produced his identify card and other documents. A-1 told the complainant that he was under arrest and that he would be put up in the lock up. He refused to disclose the grounds for which he was arrested and to furnish copy of First Information Report which are mandatory as per Sec.50, Crl.P.C. The complainant told A-1 and A-2 that he is a diabetic. His request to release him on bail on his own surety or on the surety of others was rejected. After a brief meeting between A-1 and A-2. A-2 told the complainant to give in writing a letter of apology, according to their dictation. If he wanted to go home on bail or else to be prepared to enter the lock up, which was already over crowded. with drunkards etc. Thus A-1 and A-2 attempted to dishonestly extort a valuable security, after intentionally pulling the complainant in fear of putting him illegally in the lock, up. The complainant refused 10 do so and he was forcibly stripped clean, except his underwear and was pushed into the lock up by A-1 and A-2 with the assistance of others. The complainant’s appea