O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused persons to quash the criminal case in C.C.No.172 of 2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District, which is the outcome of the FIR registered against them in Crime No.163 of 2018 dated 02.05.2018 by the first respondent on the complaint given by the second respondent.

2. The crux of the final report leading to framing charges under Sections 341 and 392 of IPC against the first petitioner and under Section 392 read with Section 109 of IPC against the second petitioner is as below:-

The de facto complainant is a lorry driver. For loading sand from the sand yard under licensee M/s Devi Constructions, he made online booking and went with the lorry bearing registration number TN 47 AB 4135 to the quarry site on 02.05.2018 at about 08:00 am. At that time, the first petitioner/Selvam, who is working in the yard under the licensee, on seeing the permit sought Rs.1000/- as bribe to load sand. When the de facto complainant querried why he should pay Rs.1,000/- when he have a valid permit, Selvam/first petitioner informed, that the yard owner Sadasivam/second petitioner had instructed to demand Rs 1,000/- to load the sand or else not to allow them to load sand from the yard. Under threat, the first petitioner robbed Rs.1,000/- from the de facto complainant and also collected permit slips from two other lorry drivers, who did not have money to pay.

3. The first respondent, on receiving the complaint, had registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2018 against these petitioners for offences under Sections 341 and 384 IPC. On completion of investigation, the final report was filed on 16.08.2018, before the learned Judicial Magistrate. On perusal of the documents filed along with the final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate had framed charges under Sections 341 and 392 IPC against the first petitioner, against whom prima facie material found available for wrongful restrain and for robbing the de facto complaiant at the instigation of the second petitioner and against the second petitioner for abetting the first petitioner to commit robbery.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the case is foisted due to business rivalry and the learned Judge, who framed the charge against these petitioners, has not properly appreciated the material placed by the Investigating Officer. The confession statements obtained by force has been considered by the trial Court for framing charges.

5. The learned counsel would also states that neither the permit slip nor Rs.1,000/- alleged to have been rabbed, were recovered by the Investigating Officer to prima faciely establish that there was robery under threat and wrongful restrain. Further relying upon the lorry loading register retained at Muttam Sand Quarry Dipot, the learned counsel submitted that the loading of sand in the said dipot started only after 04:00 pm on 02.05.2018 and therefore, the alleged wrongful restrain and extortion or robbery, on 02.05.2018 at about 08:00 am, as alleged in the FIR, on the face of it found to be false. The petitioners, who are regulating movement of the trucks for loading the sand, have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. Therefore, he seeks for quash of the final report taken on file in C.C.No.172 of 2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)

appearing for the State would submit that on the specific complaint, that though the de facto complainant had valid permit slip for loading sand, the petitioners had collected Rs.1,000/- illegally under force and the lorries were wrongfully restrained, a case has been registered and investigated. In the course of the investigation, it was found that the averments made in the complaint are true and hence, the final report was filed based on the statements gi