The court relied on the respondent's medical records and his complaint to the police station as crucial evidence supporting the case, and found no irregularities in the proceedings.

The petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.81 of 2006 now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Polur and quash the prosecution case insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The respondents case is that he has filed C.C.No.81 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannmalai District, against four persons namely 1. Sivagnanam, s/o Ramasamy Udayar, 2, R. Pandu, son of Chakravarthy 3. Babu, son of Subramani and 4.Murthy, son of Krishnan for an alleged offence under section 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC. The respondent has stated that he is working as a driver of a lorry, in the Agricultural Co-operative Society. The said lorry was sold and then the driver/respondent was removed form service. The Agricultural Co-operative Society paid some amount to the respondent for termination of services. The respondent approached this Honourable Court seeking relief. This Honourable Court directed the co-operative society to appoint him as night watchman.

3. The Agricultural Co-operative Society imposed a condition that the respondent should pay the amount paid by the co-operative society, along with 18% interest. Accordingly, the respondent paid the amount to the 1st petitioner herein. The 1st petitioner told the respondent to meet him after some time. After several meetings the 1st petitioner returned the money but refused to give him a job. Again on 11.04.2005, at 4 p.m, the respondent met the 1st and 2nd petitioner and questioned them as to why they had not given him the job. Immediately, the 1st petitioner used abusive language against the respondent. The 2nd petitioner threatened the respondent and warned him that if he sees him again, he will murder him. The next day, the 3rd and 4th accused persons threatened the respondent and supported the 1st accused and the 3rd accused had also beaten the respondent with stick. The 4th accused had also beaten the respondent with stick. Further, the 3rd and 4th accused threatened to murder him. In the result, the respondent sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital as in-patient for some time. Thereafter, the respondent lodged a complaint with Police Station, Polur along with wound certificate. The concerned police officer did not take any action on his complaint. Supporting his case, the respondent furnished 2 witnesses.

4. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on his file and issued summons to the parties.

5. Now, the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 have filed the quash petition on the below mentioned grounds.

1) The cognizance of the offence against all the accused is opposed to mandatory provision of section 223 of Criminal Procedure Code. Further, there is not even a whispera that the incident on 12.04.2005 was on account of the abutment or instigation by the petitioners and therefore, the joint trial of accused is contrary to law.

2) The petitioners state that even in the complaint, it is not stated that the incident took place in public place and therefore, the invocation of section 294(b) is not maintainable. Further even in the sworn statement, there is no mention that the incident took place on 11.04.2005 in a public place and therefore, the basic ingredient which is necessary for an offence under section 294(b), viz, abusing in a public place is lacking and the cognizance is contrary to law.

3) The petitioners further state that the complaint states that both the petitioners were present on 11.04.2005 when alleged incident took place, in the sworn statement, there is no reference to the presence of the 2nd petitioner and therefore, the cognizance qua the 2nd petitioners for the alleged incident on 11.04.2005 cannot be sustained.

4) Further, the petitioners submit that there is absolutely no materiel to proceed with the case, as the complainant has not mentioned the doctor and the nature of treatment, the respondent got for the alleged wound. Further, the said case has been taken on