ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.96 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, Theni District, insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner would contend that he is a practicing Advocate and that his implication in the present case is wholly unwarranted, legally unsustainable, and actuated by improper exercise of police power. According to him, even the remand Court, at the relevant point of time, had found no sufficient material to justify his remand for the alleged offences. It is in the said backdrop that the present petition has come to be filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as projected by the respondent police, is that on the date of occurrence, the police had intercepted the second accused in connection with alleged illegal transportation of sand and had secured both the vehicle involved and about half unit of sand.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein had proceeded to the place of occurrence and that he was introduced by the second accused to the police as the owner of the vehicle involved in the alleged offence.

5. The prosecution would further allege that when the police attempted to take action in the matter, the petitioner had interfered with the discharge of official duty by the police personnel and had used criminal force by twisting the hand of one Selvam, a police official. On the basis of the said allegations, the petitioner came to be implicated for the offences under Sections 341, 353 and 379 IPC.

6. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent police laid a final report, which was taken on file as C.C.No.96 of 2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, Theni District.

Grounds for quash

7. The principal grounds urged by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings are as follows:

7.1. Firstly, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate, and according to him, he had gone only to assist the second accused, who had been taken into custody by the respondent police in connection with the alleged sand theft case.

7.2. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner was unnecessarily taken into custody by the police on the very same day, though there was no legally acceptable material to implicate him in the alleged occurrence.

7.3. Thirdly, the petitioner would place strong reliance on the remand report and the observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate at the relevant stage, wherein it was noticed that the police had failed to produce any material to show that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle allegedly involved in the offence or that he had committed theft of sand.

7.4. Fourthly, it is contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate had refused to remand the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 353 and 379 IPC and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and had specifically directed the Investigating Officer to proceed in accordance with Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7.5. Fifthly, the petitioner would submit that despite the above judicial direction, the police did not comply with the mandate of Section 41A Cr.P.C., 1973, and, in disregard of the same, proceeded to file the final report against him. According to the petitioner, such a course of action vitiates the prosecution insofar as he is concerned.

7.6. Lastly, it is urged that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioner and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.

Arguments on the side of the petitioner:

8. The learned counsel appearing for t