1. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C. No. 111 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengelpet and to quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he serves in Tamil Nadu State Police and in the year 2007 he served as the Deputy Superintendent of Police of organized crime unit-II of CBCID, Salem. At that relevant point of time he was entrusted with responsibility for the conduct of the trial and disposal of a case in S.C. No. 363 of 2005.

3. In the said case the respondent herein is the 1st accused and the charge leveled against him was that on 12.04.2004 he abducted and murdered his Son-in-Law namely Pradap. In the said case the respondent s daughter namely Selvarasi stood arrayed as an important witness. Originally the above crime was investigated and the charge sheet in S.C. No. 363 of 2005 was filed in the year 2005 itself even prior to assuming of charge by the petitioner in the above CBCID unit.

4. The said case was posted for trial and the trial Court had also issued summons to the witness. Therefore the petitioner being the deputed police authority for the conduct of case, in this regard the petitioner has enquired with the respondent on 22.01.2009 about the whereabouts of his daughter namely Selvarasi so as to serve the witness summons.

5. Whereas as if the respondent was threatened by the petitioner, the respondent filed a petition before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chengelpet. The said petition was returned by the Learned District Judge with an endorsement to approach the competent authority. Subsequently after a period of 3 month the respondent on 22.04.2009, come up with the present private complaint as if respondent was intimidated and wrongfully restrained by the petitioner, when the respondent was waiting in the veranda of the Court on 22.01.2009.

6. It is the case of the respondent that on 22.01.2009 the petitioner herein questioned the respondent about his absence in the previous hearing of the case on 07.01.2009, for which the respondent replied that he had met with an accident at Madurai and hence was not present on 07.01.2009.

7. The above said complaint is an utter false and not maintainable either in law of fact. The filing of the above complaint as against the petitioner is with a view to prevent the petitioner from taking efforts in speedy disposal of the above case. The private complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner is not maintainable since there is no sanction under Section 197 (1) of Cr.P.C.

8. Therefore the petitioner invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has come up with the present criminal original Petition in Crl. O.P. No. 19070 of 2010 seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 111 of 2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengelpet.

9. I heard Mr. R. Vivekananthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, respondent (party-in-person) and on careful perusal of the records available before this Court.

10. This Court on repeated reading of the complaint is not able to trace out even a word, attracting the offence of 341 IPC. The complaint runs that the respondent was intimidated on 22.01.2009 for his absence on 07.01.2009 and further alleges that the petitioner required the respondent s daughter Selvarasi, the prosecution witness to be present 2 days prior to her examination. It was further case of the respondent that the petitioner threatened him that in case of failure to produce his daughter, the respondent will be shot dead.

11. It is needless to say that in the above complaint there is absolutely no ingredient present to attract the offence of Section 341 IPC. It is further noticed that the respondent being a practicing advocate has not stated any reason for the delay of 3 months for the filing of the complaint on 22.04.2009, for an alleged offence said to have taken place on 22.04.2009.

12. Further, consi