N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 147 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram. The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner on the ground that while the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police in the District Crime Branch he had registered several cases against the respondent and arrested the respondent at his house. At the time of arrest, the petitioner seized valuable articles from the respondent's house and it was not produced before the Court and thereby the petitioner had taken away the articles. The respondent has further stated in the complaint that the petitioner had intentionally detained the respondent under the Goondas Act and the same was revoked subsequently by the Advisory Board and several other cases filed against the respondent were also quashed by the High Court. While so, on 22.03.2012 the respondent went to the Court at Ramanathapuram to meet his Advocate to discuss about a case and at about 1.30 pm, in front of the Magistrate Court, the petitioner abused the respondent to the effect that the death of the respondent will only be in the hands of the petitioner and the respondent cannot escape from being shot by the petitioner with his revolver. The respondent hearing these words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner, went into the Court out of fear. This incident resulted in filing of the private complaint by the respondent against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ramanthapuram took cognizance of the complaint for an offence under Section 307 of IPC and also issued summons to the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate before issuance of the summons, had examined the respondent and four other witnesses.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is a habitual criminal, who is involved in several crimes. He has also produced a list of seven cases in which, the respondent is the main accused. It is because of the fact that the respondent is a habitual offender, he was detained under Act 14 of 1982.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent also gave a complaint before the Additional Superintendent of Police to take action against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had taken away the valuables from the house of the respondent at the time of arrest and action must be taken against the petitioner and the valuables must be returned back to the respondent. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Crimes, Ramanathapuram District, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report dated 20.03.2009, wherein he has come to a conclusion that a false complaint has been given by the respondent.

4. The learned Counsel further submitted that it was thereafter, the respondent had chosen to give a private complaint for the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC. The learned Counsel would submit that a reading of the complaint does not make out an offence under Section 307 IPC. The learned Counsel also submitted that the entire complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to personal grudge. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the private complaint filed by the respondent deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Veerakathiravan, representing the respondent would submit that the petitioner was involved in registering one case after the other against the respondent and even went to the extent of entering into the house of the respondent and taking away the valuables. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a reading of the complaint and also the evidence adduced by four other witnesses apart from the respondent, clearly makes out a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC. The learned