N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.105 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as A-6 and A-8 in the final report.

3. The brief facts of the case:

It is the case of the prosecution that the third accused in this case had illegally executed a sale deed with respect to certain property in favour of the second accused. According to the prosecution, this act was done with the aid of the first and fourth accused persons. The fourth accused person is the Village Administrative Officer and the first accused is the husband of the fourth accused. A-5, A-6 and A-7 are the attesting witnesses to the document. The de facto complainant is said to have purchased this property in the year 1973, but however the patta was issued in the name of the third accused to an extent of 0.82 cents. When the de facto complainant approached the fourth respondent for changing of patta, A-1 and A-4 are said to have demanded bribe from the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant refused to pay any money. Therefore, using a false patta, A-3 is said to have sold the property with the help of A-1 and A-4, in favour of A-2. Initially, a First Information Report was registered in Crime No.1132 of 2010 against seven accused persons and the second petitioner name did not find place in the First Information Report. Thereafter, on investigation, the respondent police filed a final report by including the name of the second petitioner also. The second petitioner was serving as an Assistant in the Collectorate at the time of occurrence and he is also said to have involved in the conspiracy by which the property was illegally transferred in favour of A-2.

4. It is seen from the records that there are two public servants, who are involved in this Case. They are A-4 and A-8 / second petitioner. A-8 initially filed a discharge petition in Cr.M.P.No.6761 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and the said discharge petition was dismissed by the Court below, by an order dated 20.06.2014 and subsequently, the second petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing Crl.R.C(MD) No.319 of 2014. This criminal revision petition was dismissed by this Court, by an order dated 29.08.2018. This Court while dismissing the criminal revision petition has directed the Court below to spilt up the case against the absconding accused and take up the trial with regard to the remaining accused persons and complete the same within a period of six months.

5. It seems that even during the pendency of the discharge petition, the present criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.105 of 2016. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether after dismissal of the criminal revision petition, this Court can once again consider the issue raised by the petitioners independently under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is true that even after dismissal of the discharge petition, a petition under Section 482 can be maintained before this Court.

6. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitender Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 770. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:-

The appellant had moved the High Court of Delhi in a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC invoking its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court assumed the petition to be as if one under Section 397(2) [sic 397(3)] of the CrPC, which according to it did not lie since the revision petition preferred by the appellant had been dismissed by the Court of Session. We are of the view that the High Court failed to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 of the CrPC as also under Section 482 of the said Code. It is true that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court when one is dismissed by the Court of Session