P.N. Prakash, J.

This petition has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District to quash the prosecution launched by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar in STC No. 221 of 2014 for offences under Sections 174, 175 and 176 IPC r/w 345, 349 and 350 Cr.P.C.

2. At the request of this Court, Mr. John Sathyan, learned Advocate acted as amicus curiae and assisted.

3. What are the avenues that are open to a Magistrate to lawfully rein in a recalcitrant and reticent police?, is the issue that falls for consideration in this case. The reaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar who was pushed to the wall can be explained in no better terms than by extracting verbatim the complaint he drafted against the Superintendent of Police, which is as follows:

"Complaint under section 190(1)(c) R/w 200(a)

1. The case in PRC 3/95 is pending for the past 20 years. NBW against the accused Tailor Vasu has not been executed for 20 years. This court is struggling for the last 20 years to commit this case to the Sessions Court. Neither the SHO, Cheyyar Police Station nor the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai has co-operated with this court to commit this case to Sessions Court for the past 20 years in spite of repeated communications. This Court is bound to commit this PRC case within six weeks under Rule 87(ii) of Crl.Rules of Practice. Since this case could not have been committed to Sessions Court within such period, finally on 05.02.15, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai to submit a report as to the action taken on the communication sent by this Court dated 16.11.07, 14.07.08, 30.04.08, 09.09.10, 22.11.10, 21.03.11, 07.02.11, 19.01.11, 20.10.11, 11.04.12, 08.12.12, 25.01.13 and 08.10.14. The said communication in Dis. No. 188/15 was sent through Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. Despite the above referred communication dated 05.02.15, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai has not filed any report before this Court in spite of repeated adjournments on 02.03.15, 03.03.15, 23.03.15. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai is legally bound to give information/report being a public servant with regard to the apprehension of an offender in the present long pending 20 years PRC case and by failing to furnish such information/report to this Court, Prima facie the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai has committed an offence punishable under Section 176 IPC.

2. In another ten years long pending case in PRC 7/03, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai has addressed a letter dated 12.04.08 as if a proposal of withdrawal of prosecution is pending before the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai. This court sent a communication to Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai to submit a report with respect to the decision taken on the proposal for withdrawal of that case on 2-02-15 in Dis. No. 165/15. The said communication was sent through Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. Said communication did not yield any positive result. Therefore, by a detailed order dated 23.02.15, this Court issued summons to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to produce the records relating to their own communication dated 12.04.08, on or before 23.03.15. There was no representation till 5.45 p.m. on 23.03.15. Once again this Court issued fresh summons dated 1.4.15 to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai to produce the above records by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due.

3. Even after receipt of the summons as evidenced from postal acknowledgment card, the records as required by this Court, has not been produced before this Court by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai on 18.04.15. Moreover, there is no representation for prosecution till 4.45 p.m. on 18.4.15. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai is not above the law. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai has failed to attend this Court in person or