Accepting report and dropping proceeding is not a judicial order.

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 A-1 to A-5.

2. The petitioners were charge sheeted on 31.12.1993 for the offences under Secs.120-B, 395, 201, 467, 471 and 109, I.P.C. The following is the gist of the charge sheet:

“The first petitioner A-l was the sitting M.L.A. for Kindnathukadavu constituency in 1983. The second petitioner A-2 is the younger son and fourth petitioner is the younger brother of A-1. The third petitioner A-3 was an accountant under the first petitioner. The fifth petitioner A-5 was working as Tahsildar 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 Negamam by agreeing to do certain acts 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, second petitioner and third petitioner along with approvers 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 were worth about Rs.34,398 standing in Government poromboke land. Thereupon, on 28.3.1983 at about 11 a.m., at the instigation of the first petitioner and with the assistance of the fourth petitioner, the witnesses Duraivelu and Gurunadhan came with false names of Antony and Mani respectively and gave a false joint statement stating that they cuts the trees. Knowing fully well that they were fictituous persons, the fifth petitioner Tahsildar recorded false statements 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 petitioners 2 and 3 with approver Rathinasamy and others out the roots and stumps of the two rosewood trees and removed and burnt them along with the remnants of the cut branches of those trees and caused the said evidence to disappear with the intention of screening the above said offenders of dacotiy from legal punishment.”

3. Regarding the occurrence took place in January, 1983, a case was registered in Crime No.36 of 1983 on 19.2.1983 by the Kinathukadavu 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 Sec.379, I.P.C. 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 Sec.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 of 1983 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 of 1983 also. The petition was ordered on 30.10.1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, 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 occurrence were taken place in pursuance of single conspiracy. So, a sin