These criminal original petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.274 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem.

2.The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.3298 of 2014 has been arrayed as 2nd accused and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.28671 of 2015 have been arrayed as accused 4 to 6 in the case in C.C.No.274 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposing these petitions, are as follows:-

3-1.The 1st petitioner A.Leo Charles (A2) is the Managing Partner of the firm M/s.Bricksteel Enterprises. The 2nd petitioner Breddy (A4) is the Manager, the 3rd petitioner Sheikh Ameer (A5) is the Public Relation Officer and the 4th petitioner Tmt.Amalarani (A6) is employed as the Computer Assistant in the said firm. The said firm is engaged in the activities of construction of buildings and other related works. In the course of such business activities, the said firm executed civil works for Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Karaikal (in short ONGC). While executing the said works, some disputes arose between the petitioners' firm and ONGC. Hence, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator in the year 2015. The 1st petitioner/A2, Managing Partner of the said firm, engaged the services of the respondent herein/complainant to assist their Advocate on technical aspects in the aforesaid Arbitration Proceedings, for which his remuneration was fixed and paid then and there. It is further case of the petitioners/accused that without the knowledge and consent of the 1st petitioner/A2, the respondent had given the address of the 1st petitioner/A2 to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and he had himself registered as a Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The respondent had also used the office of the petitioners and its amenities and had thereby made personal gains. The respondent had also attempted to steal some of the files from the office of the petitioners and when it came to the knowledge of the 1st petitioner/A2, he had confronted the respondent on that issue and the respondent had accepted his mistakes and sought apology from the 1st petitioner/A2.

3-2.After the completion of the Arbitration proceedings, the service of the 1st respondent was not required and it was, therefore, informed to him by the 1st petitioner/A2. However, the respondent insisted that he should be appointed on a regular basis, as a regular staff, which was declined by the 1st petitioner/A2. On coming to know that in the arbitration proceedings, an award was passed in favour of the petitioners' firm, the respondent started to demand a huge sum of Rs.2,50,000/-in addition to the amount already paid to him for his assistance and services done in the Arbitration proceedings. The 1st petitioner/A2 did not accept the said demand of the respondent; hence, enraged over the petitioner's refusal, the respondent started threatening the petitioners stating that he would go to any extent to damage and spoil their reputation and also would cause loss to the petitioners. The respondent sent several communications to the petitioners' clients, with whom the petitioners were executing construction works, and also to Canara Bank with whom the petitioners were maintaining an account and to several others, including the Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican, Rome. Such communication was also sent to the Bishop of Salem by the respondent containing defamatory statements about the petitioners.

3-3.The respondent, in the beginning, filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, against the 1st petitioner, his staff Sheik Ameer and respondent's neighbour one Mr.Jamaluddin (A3) on 09.11.2009, for alleged theft of a sum of Rs.1,900/-and a camera owned by him between 09.10.2009 and 03.11.2009. The above said complaint was investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salem West. The 1st petitioner and two others were summoned fo