1. This petition seeks to call for the records in C.C. No.478 of 2011 and quash the final report filed in F.I.R. No.695 of 2010 in C.C.No.478 of 2011 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and consequently direct for further investigation on the case and counter cases of complaints in F.I.R. No.695 of 2010 and C.S.R. No.205 of 2010 dated 27.09.2010, on the file of the 1st Respondent Police.

2. The case is one wherein the petitioners herein are alleged to have been committed the offences under Sections 143, 448, 323 and 506(i) of IPC.

3. The petitioners are the medical practitioners and had been in their profession for more than 45 and 2 years respectively. The 1st respondent has registered a case in F.I.R. No.695 of 2010 on the false complaint given by the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) against these petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 448, 323 and 506(i) of IPC.

4. The 1st respondent has failed to conduct proper enquiry regarding the incident occurred on 27.09.2010, but contrary to that, they have conducted biased enquiry favouring the 2nd respondent. Further the 1st respondent has failed to conduct any enquiry or investigation on the complaint given by these petitioners on 27.09.2010 and the same was registered in CSR No. 205 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

5. Before I enter into this present petition, the facts of the case as emerged from the records need to be noted for deciding the issues raised in this petition.

6. The brief facts of the petitioners’ case:

The petitioners had entrusted some civil cases to the 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant, an advocate by name Dr. Antony Selvaraj, who is practicing at Chennai. In order to institute a civil suit for specific performance, the petitioners had paid a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty eight lakhs only) towards expenses for the Court fees and other filing charges and the 2nd respondent had also issued a receipt for such amount received from the petitioners. But to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent has not filed any civil suit for specific performance and on enquiry the petitioners came to understand that the 2nd respondent has filed only a bare injunction suit instead of filing a suit for specific performance. Immediately the petitioners had approached the 2nd respondent and requested to give consent for change of vakalat to proceed the above suit through their family advocate.

7. Thereafter on several occasions the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent to give consent for change of vakalat. But even after repeated request made by the petitioners, their then counsel, who is the 2nd respondent herein neither conceded their request for change of vakalat nor repaid the amount collected towards the court fees. Hence the petitioners left with no other alternative remedy have filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.

8. While so, on 27.09.2010, the 1st petitioner along with his son Dr. Sivananthakumar, who is the 2nd petitioner herein went to the Court to attend the hearing of his civil suit, which is pending before the learned XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and after attending his case, the 1st petitioner along with his son went to the Office of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu to know about the status of his complaint given against his then advocate Mr. Antony Selvaraj, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant herein. At that time, the petitioners were waylaid by the said advocate Mr. Antony Selvaraj and ten others and assaulted the petitioners with hits and blouse all over their body. Consequently, both are sustained severe bodily injuries. That apart the above said advocate along with 10 others assaulted the petitioners and threatened to kill them if they proceed with any such complaint.

9. Thereafter, the petitioners were escorted by the Police and brought to the Police Station. But after reaching the Police Station, to the shock