Point of Law: Court is able to clearly see that the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with mala fide intention to satisfy the defacto complainant. A civil complainant is simply given colour in the form of criminal complainant.

Judgment :-

(Prayer: These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime Nos.177 of 2020, 39 of 2020, 9 of 2020 and 179 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners concerned.)

Common Judgment

1. All the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the Crime numbers pending against the petitioners concerned on the file of the first respondent police.

2. Since all the Criminal Original Petitions arise out of the similar facts and circumstances of the case, they are all taken up together and decided by this common Order.

3. The gist of the case, as projected by the petitioners, in their respective petitions, are narrated below:

3.1. The petitioners in all the Criminal Original Petitions inter alia would aver among other things that they were engaged in agricultural activities. The petitioner's father's brothers namely one Siluvaithasan and Duraisamy sold their respective share of their property to the defacto complainant, namely, the second respondent herein. It is stated that the said land is adjacent to the petitioner's property. It is alleged that the defacto complainant forced the petitioners to part with the lands to the defacto complainant which was refused by the petitioners. As a result, the petitioners have also lodged several complainants on various occasions to the electricity department and had also filed a civil suit before the learned District Munsif Court Sathankulam in O.S.No.25 of 2020 against the second respondent herein.

3.2. It is further averred that on 19.01.2020, around 8 pm, the first petitioner herein was attacked by the defacto complainant and others and caused him injuries by using an aruval. The first petitioner was hospitalized at Medical College Hospital, Palayamkotttai as an MLC case. After receiving intimation of the first petitioner's admission in the hospital, the Inspector of Police, namely, one Hari Krishnan and another policemen came to the hospital to record his statement. After recording the statement, the first petitioner was asked to come out of the ward for signing the statement. However, it is alleged that without any information to the hospital authorities, he was forcibly taken from the hospital to Thattarmadam Police Station. The first petitioner therefore was shown as absconding from the hospital on the same day evening at 7 p.m on 19.01.2020. In this regard, the petitioner's father lodged a compliant to the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi on 20.01.2020. In the mean time, at the instance of Mr.Hari Krishnan, the Inspector of Police, the land belonging to the petitioners was sold to the defacto complainant. Due to land dispute, the first petitioner was also remanded to judicial custody on 21.01.2020 and the first petitioner was also taking medical treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi through the permission of the jail authorities. Subsequently, the first petitioner and his family members have also sent a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and the same was registered as in SHRC.No.139 of 2020.

3.3. It is further averred that the said Harikrishnan, Inspector of Police, registered three more false cases against the petitioners family members in the same police station, which resulted in registering Cr.Nos.39/2020, 179/2020 and 9/2020. The first petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15276 of 2020 had filed an anticipatory bail petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9705 of 2020. The said petition came up for hearing on 14.09.2020 and the same was adjourned to 17.09.2020 to enable the first petitioner to file an affidavit about the illtreatment and physical torture carried out by the Inspector of Police. Following this, he got enraged and instigated the defacto complainant herein, who waylaid the petitioner'