The central legal point established is that malicious prosecution and abuse of process of law are impermissible, especially when there is no wrongdoing on the part of the accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.109 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ariyalur and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.)

1. The petitioner herein is the 9th accused.

2. The petitioner is the Sub-Inspector of Police in Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ariyalur and he has filed the instant Criminal Original Petition, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.109 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur and quash the same.

3. The case of the prosecution is that

(i) On 30.08.2015 at 06.00pm, the respondent with her parents and his brother were inside the house before the TV. At that time they heard a sound in front of the house. Hence, the respondent's father came outside the house and saw that the accused 1 to 8 namely 1.Mani, S/o.Kolanchi, 2.Ajithi, S/o. Kolanchi, 3. Balasubramanian, S/o.Kaathaperumal, 4. Poobalan, S/o.Balasubramanian, 5.Selvaraj, S/o. Kottakolanchi, 6.Selvam, S/o.Ponnuchamy, 7.Sundari, W/o.Kollanchi and 8.Patchiammal, W/o.Balasubramanian, were assembled before the house of the respondent and damaged the tiles of the house.

(ii) Accused No.1 to 8 abused them for the dispute of non-payment of the charges for ploughing the land and trying to do the same through others. The accused persons caused damage to the motor cycle and bicycle. Thereafter, the parents of the respondent prevented the accused persons and hence the accused persons attacked them and caused damages of Rs.10,000/- to the two wheelers and tiles.

(iii) The respondent filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur on 05.10.2015 and no action was taken in the complaint.

(iv) Thereafter, on 16.11.2015 the respondent filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and the same was taken on file in Cr.M.P.No.8672 of 2015 and it was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station on 18.11.2015 in D.No.4823. The Inspector of Police had registered the case in Crime No.648 of 2016 for the offences under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 354, 506 (ii) and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The petitioner herein investigated the case and the final report was filed on 26.11.2016 as 'mistake of fact'.

(v) On the report filed by the petitioner herein as a 'mistake of fact', the case in Crime No.648 of 2016, has been closed.

(vi) Subsequently it appears that the respondent herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by arraying the accused 1 to 8 as in the above Crime No.648/2016 for the very same allegation and also added the Sub Inspector of Police, PEW, Ariyalur, the petitioner herein as A9 and hence, the petitioner seeks quashment of the private complaint.

4. As stated supra, there is no averment or allegation against the petitioner herein, who is the previous investigation officer, having investigated the alleged crime in Cr.No.648 of 2016 for the very same allegation of the commission of the offence, has prepared a negative report as a closure on the ground of 'mistake of fact'.

5. Merely because the petitioner herein has investigated the complaint in the said Crime No.648 of 2016 and filed a negative report against the private complainant, the same could not be a ground to add the earlier investigation officer also as an accused for this case for the alleged offence.

6. The learned Magistrate without perusing the averments made in the private complaint appears to have issued summons to the accused person/A9 under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C.

7. I find that the factual matrix of this case squarely falls under Clause 'g' of the celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 [State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal], which reads as follows:

“(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulter