Order This is a petition under Sec.482. Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in Petty Case No.4281 of 1984, on the file of the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, which had been filed on the basis of Crime No.229 of 1984, on the file of the R6 Police Station under Sec. 75 of the Madras City Police Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the petty case charge sheet filed before the learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, a copy of which had been furnished to the petitioner, it is simply stated that on 13.5.1984, at about 8.30 p.m., the petitioner abused the Sub-Inspector of the said police station regarding a case taken on file by him and the petitioner also abused police person, likely to cause breach of peace and committed the offence punishable under Sec. 75 of the City Police Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a respectable person and member of the organisation called ‘Vanniyar Ilaig-nar Iyakkam’ and the organisation is fighting for social justice and upliftment of suppressed action of people belongimg to all communities and the petitioner went to the police station to enquire about an old lady who was to be detained in the police station and the petitioner wanted to know the cause of the detention over which the Sub-Inspector of Police because violent and beat him and caused him injury and the Sub-Inspector of Police also abused about the organisation and the crowd which gathered before the police station saved him and he was taken from the police station to the Government Hospital at K.K. Nagar and he was treated there for injuries and he has obtained a wound certificate and he has also filed a Complaint regarding the incident and he has sent copies of the Complaint to the President of India and other higher officials. While that was so, learned counsel submitted, action had been taken falsely alleging that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sec. 75 of the City Police Act. 3. While that was so, learned counsel submitted, action had been taken falsely alleging that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sec. 75 of the City Police Act. 3. Learned counsel also pointed out to the decision reported in Varadan v. State, Inspector of Police, Abhiramapuram Varadan v. State, Inspector of Police, Abhiramapuram 1984 L.W. (Crl.) 48 by Maheswaran, J., wherein the learned Judge has pointed out that where no First Information Report was registered and where there was no investigation in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 156, Criminal Procedure Code, and where the procedure to be followed for investigation under Sec. 157, Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed and no statements have been recorded in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 161(3) of the Code and copies of such statements not being furnished, the proceedings are clearly vitiated and have to be quashed. 4. In this case, the said decisions is squarely applicable since in the petty case charge sheet furnished to the petitioner, no names of witnesses had been given and it is also not known as to who is the third witness described as Sub-Inspector whom the petitioner abused. Likewise, while the Sub-Inspector is described as third witness there, is no indication as to who are the other two witnesses relied upon to establish the charge against the petitioner. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no other copy had been furnished and in such circumstances it is quite clear that no First Information Report had been registered and the procedure contemplated for investigation had not been followed and so there could be no hesitation to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in Petty Case No. 4281 of 1984 on the file of the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras are quashed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.