ORDER: The petitioner is the fifth accused in P.R.C.No.8 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. He is being prosecuted along with four others on a private complaint instituted by the respondent for alleged offences under Sec.120-B , 302 , 390 and 506(ii), Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution can now be summarised. On 9.10.1985, the petitioner was the Inspector of Police at Thisayanvilai and one A.M.Subbaraj was the Sub-Inspector of Police at the Uvari Police Station, which was under the jurisdiction of the petitioner. In respect of the suspicious death of one Ramasamy Nadar, Chi-dambaranathan, the brother of the said Ramasamy Nadar, preferred a complaint, at 5 P.M. on 9.10.1985, before the Uvari Police Station, which was registered as Crime No. 145 of 1985 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, under Sec.174, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the petitioner took up investigation later in the evening and also prepared a seized mahazar at 6 P.M., at the scene. Thereafter, on the next day, the Executive Magistrate, Radhapuram, conducted an inquest and the Panchayatdars unanimously gave their verdict that the deceased Ramasamy Nadar had been murdered by his son Suyambanandam and others in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by them. Thereafter, the petitioner, on completion of the investigation obtained opinion from the Public Prosecutor, and filed the charge-sheet before the J.S.C.M. Nanguneri against nine persons, of whom the first accused is the son of the deceased and the last accused is the son-in-law of the deceased. 3. The motive for the murder appears to be that the deceased Ramasamy Nadar, who was a rich person, having earned substantial properties as his self-acquisitions, had illicit intimacy with one Sulochana who was initially his servant-maid before she was taken as a concubine. Suyambanan-dam, A-1 in Crime No.145 of 1985 did not relish the attitude of his father and with an eye on the property of the deceased, had filed O.S.No. 122 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, praying for partition- It is prosecution case that Suyambanandam apprehended that his father, the deceased, might alienate the property in favour of Sulochana, and that was the motive for hatching a conspiracy to get rid of Ramasamy Nadar. 4. The occurrence appears to have taken place between 7.30 P.M. and 10 P.M. on 8.10.1985. 4. The occurrence appears to have taken place between 7.30 P.M. and 10 P.M. on 8.10.1985. The concealing of the offence appears to have been done soon thereafter, by burying the body in a pit with sand and thorns. In the process of the burial, the accused alleged to have removed the gold ring and wrist watch worn by the deceased Ramasamy Nadar. In the charge-sheet filed in Crime No.145 of 1985, twenty six witnesses have been cited. It is stated that, after committal, the case arising out of Crime No.145 of 1985 is pending trial in S.C.No. 37 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli. While so, on 5.2.1986, this private complaint was instituted by first accused in Crime No.145 of 1985 against the petitioner and four others, which has resulted in P.R.C.No. 8 of 1986, which proceedings are sought to be quashed by the petitioner, as far as he is concerned. 5. Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed before me two contentions: (i) The entire averments in the complaint relate to two different instances, which have occurred on two different dates, both of which could not be clubbed in one complaint, and hence misjoinder of persons as well as offences are patent. (ii) The averments made in the complaint disclose certain offences, alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in Court, which the trial Court cannot take cognizance of on a private complaint by the respondent, since the complaint, if any, must be in writing by the Court, or some other superior Court. Circumvention of the provisions of Sec.195, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be permitted. 6. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to look into the averments made in the complaint as far as the petitioner is concerned. The murder and concealing of the evidence has taken place on 8.10.1985 during night time. The averments in a complaint is that at or about 10.30 a.m. on 9.10.1985, one Rajagopal, cited as P.W.2 in the charge-sheet, went to the Uvari Police Station and narrated to Subbaraj, the Sub-Inspector, the incident which had occurred the earlier night when accused 1 to 3 in the private complaint had taken the deceased by tying his legs. The averments in a complaint is that at or about 10.30 a.m. on 9.10.1985, one Rajagopal, cited as P.W.2 in the charge-sheet, went to the Uvari Police Station and narrated to Subbaraj, the Sub-Inspector, the incident which had occurred the earlier night when accused 1 to 3 in the private complaint had taken the deceased by tying his legs. It appears from the complaint that he also narrated to the Sub-Inspector of Police that accused 1 to 3 in the private complaint threatened him then that he would also be done to death if he divulged what he had seen. It is stated in the private complaint that the Sub-Inspector of Police directed Rajagopal to wait for the arrival of the petitioner and at or about 12 noon, the petitioner reached the Uvari Police Station. It appears that Rajagopal informed the petitioner about what he had seen and wanted him to take action in the matter. At or about that time, it is stated in the complaint that accused 1 to 3 in the private complaint entered the police station and had a private conversation with the petitioner, resulting in the petitioner criminally intimidating the said Rajagopal that in the event of his divulging his having seen the occurrence, or his having approached the authorities to set the law in motion, death or grievous hurt would be the consequence. It appears that Rajagopal then left for Coimbatore. These are the allegations made against the petitioner. 7. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is not sought to be implicated either with the conspiracy or the offence of murder or concealing the evidence of murder. The only allegation against him, even if all the averments in the complaint are taken at their face value will disclose an offence under Sec.506, I.P.C., alone. Obviously, this offence has not been committed, either during the murder as such or while the offence of murder was sought to be concealed. This is an independent offence which had taken place at the police station, a day later to the actual occurrence. Though allegations have been made against the other accused in the private complaint regarding conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to conceal the evidence, no such averments are made as far as the petitioner is concerned. This is an independent offence which had taken place at the police station, a day later to the actual occurrence. Though allegations have been made against the other accused in the private complaint regarding conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to conceal the evidence, no such averments are made as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is only in this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has been misjoinder of the persons and the offences in this private complaint. 8. Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that Sec.223(d), Criminal Procedure Code, may permit a joint trial, since it was plausible that different offences had been committed in the course of the same transaction. As an alternative, he would submit that it will be premature to go into this question, at this stage. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the counsel. In the complete absence of any allegation that the petitioner was in any way connected with the commission of murder, or the conspiracy to commit that crime, or for concealing the said offence, a joint trial will be absolutely illegal. The only allegation against the petitioner is as to what happened at the police station on the next clay, when he is alleged 10 have threatened the witness Rajagopal. This circumstance alone would not in my view render the offence of murder and the offence of concealing the body of the deceased parts of the same transaction. I am unable to agree that Sec.223(d), Criminal Procedure Code will permit the petitioner to be included along with the other accused in his complaint. I am also unable to agree that it will be premature to consider the question of misjoinder, for the very issue of process affects the rights of the accused and prima facie on the very complaint itself, if it is patent that there is a misjoinder of persons and offences, there will be no bar for invoking the inherent powers under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code to set right the illegality even at the initiation. On this ground of misjoinder of persons and offences, this complaint against the petitioner will have to be quashed. 10. On this ground of misjoinder of persons and offences, this complaint against the petitioner will have to be quashed. 10. Regarding the second contention, the averments in the complaint will indicate that the petitioner had fabricated false evidence against the relations of the deceased and had made a false charge of such offence with an intent to injure the accused in the Sessions Case. The offences punishable under Secs.192, 194 , 195 and 211 , I.P.C., are prima facie discernible and it may also be, that the averments may take in their fold an offence under Sec.218, I.P.C. As far as the offences under Secs.194 , 195 and 211, I.P.C. are concerned, there is a legal bar or the Magistrate to take cognizance except on a complaint in writing” by the Court or some other Committal Court and the proceedings are now pending before the Court of Sessions in relation to Crime No.145 of 1985. The complaint for these offences may have to be made either by the Committal Magistrate or by the Court of Sessions. This may also be possible, after the trial in S.C.No. 237 of 1987 is concluded. At this stage, it is apparent that to circumvent the provisions of Sec.195, Criminal Procedure Code this private complaint has been filed, implicating the petitioner for an offence under Sec.506(ii), I.P.C. alone. The attitude of the prosecution to circumvent Sec.195, Criminal Procedure Code by resorting to prosecute for other offences without attempting to move the Court or the officer concerned for taking action under Sec.195, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be allowed to stand learned counsel for the respondent would only submit that the prosecution for an offence under Sec.506(2), Indian Penal Code will still be maintainable, irrespective of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is patent that circumvention of the provision of Sec.195, Criminal Procedure Code has been attempted by the respondent, the proceedings will have to be quashed against the petitioner on this ground as well. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasoning, the proceedings in P.R.C. No.8 of 1986 on the file of the J.S.C.M., Nanguneri, are quashed as far as this petitioner alone is concerned.