ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

The present Criminal Original Petition brings before this Court a prosecution arising out of Crime No.2 of 2023 registered by the Paramakudi Taluk Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 353 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the first respondent police laid a final report, which has been taken on file as C.C.No.209 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.

2. The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, seek quashment of the said criminal proceedings on the ground that the case is a counterblast to an illegal and high-handed enquiry conducted by the de-facto complainant in connection with an alleged theft, and that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offences alleged.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.01.2023, the de-facto complainant, being a police official, was discharging his official duty. It is alleged that the petitioners abused him in obscene words, wrongfully restrained him, obstructed him from discharging his official duty, and criminally intimidated him with dire consequences.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.2 of 2023 came to be registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 353 and 506(ii) IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, and the same is now pending as C.C.No.209 of 2023. According to the prosecution, the accused had acted in concert and had intentionally prevented the de- facto complainant from performing his lawful duty as a public servant.

Grounds for quash:

5. The petitioners contend that the entire prosecution is false, exaggerated and motivated. According to them, on the midnight of 01.01.2023, the first petitioner had attended the New Year Holy Mass at Infant Jesus Church, Ulaganathapuram, Paramakudi, situated near his residence. After the mass concluded at about 1.30 a.m., the petitioner and his friends cut a cake and celebrated outside the church.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the de-facto complainant came to the church premises along with police personnel, made an enquiry and thereafter sent the persons gathered there to their respective homes. According to the petitioners, this conduct itself would show that no unlawful act was committed by the petitioners at that time.

7. The petitioners would further submit that thereafter, on the morning of 01.01.2023, the de-facto complainant came alone to the house of the first petitioner without any summons, notice or enquiry slip and took him into custody. It is alleged that he was brought to the church premises and interrogated in relation to an alleged theft said to have occurred about 800 metres away on the same night.

8. The first petitioner allegedly denied any involvement in the theft and questioned the manner in which he was taken for enquiry without any lawful procedure. The second petitioner / A2 is stated to have come to the spot later and questioned the de-facto complainant regarding the baseless accusation made against A-1. According to the petitioners, the present complaint was lodged only to justify and cover up the earlier illegal detention and coercive interrogation. They would therefore contend that the prosecution is mala fide, vindictive an