Judgment : S. THANGARAJ, J. ( 1 ) - These petitions coming on for orders on Friday the 20th day of August 1999 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. K. Sridharan Advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions and of Mr. S. Shanagha Velayuthan, Advocate for the 1st respondent in all the petitions and of Mr. V. Vibhiahanan Advocate for the 2nd respondent in all the petitions and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following order: The petitioners/accused 2 to 6 in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, Erode District have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the said case pending against them. ( 2 ) ONE Anandasekaran Selvarajan filed a complaint against the petitioners herein and the second respondent for offences under Section 120-B, 193, 196, 199 and 216. I. P. C. and Sections 14 (1-A) and 14 (2) of the Employees. Provident Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram has taken it on file in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 and issued process to the accused to appear before the said Court. Hence the present petition. ( 3 ) THE first respondent/complainant Anandasekaran Selvarajan was working in Bishop Thorp College, Dharapuram as Lecturer, second petitioner is the Chairman of the Governing Board of the said college that the third petitioner is the former Principal of the said college that the 4th petitioner is the Bursar of the said college and the 5th petitioner is one of the former Principal of the said college. The second respondent provident Fund Inspector, Erode filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Dharapuram which was taken on file in S. T. C. No. 2358 of 1996 for offences under Sections 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the said Acton the allegation that the petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 4 herein have collected provident fund amounts from the employees whereas they failed to contribute the employers share and also to deposit the said amount to the authorities concerned. The accused appeared before the said Court and pleaded, guilty for the said charges and the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the first petitioner each to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the petitioner Nos. The accused appeared before the said Court and pleaded, guilty for the said charges and the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the first petitioner each to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the petitioner Nos. 3, and 4 each to pay a fine of Rs. 1. 000/ -. The accused paid the fine and the proceedings were terminated on 30-1-1997 as per the endorsement of learned. Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. In the meantime, the college administration have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent herein, who was the Lecturer in the said college and during the pendency of the said proceedings the first respondent herein have filed the present complaint before learned Magistrate, Dharapuram. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have, raised many objections regarding the maintainability of the case pending before learned Magistrate. One of the main contentions of the petitioners is that the proceedings in S. T. C. No. 2858 of 1996 were terminated on 30-1-1997 and thereafter no case can be filed against them for the very same offences which would amount to double jeopardy. Learned Counsel for the first petitioner has argued that since the present complaint is filed by the complainant for not prosecuting the petitioners herein for all the offences committed by them and in doing so the Provident Fund Inspector who is the second respondent herein as a public servant has committed an offence and at the same time the other accused are liable for various offences for which they are liable but whereas the Provident Fund Inspector had wantonly omitted in order to prevent prosecution against the other petitioners. ( 5 ) WHEN we see the nature of the complaint which is pending in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Dharapuram it is for the offences which are wantonly left out in the earlier case. The Police Officer while investigating any offence can file a final report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. and even after filing the final report, if any new fact in connection with the said crime is brought to the knowledge of the said Investigating Officer he can very well investigate into such offence or offences and file one or more final reports before the Court in which the charge-sheet was already filed. P. C. and even after filing the final report, if any new fact in connection with the said crime is brought to the knowledge of the said Investigating Officer he can very well investigate into such offence or offences and file one or more final reports before the Court in which the charge-sheet was already filed. Even if the earlier case was disposed of by the time when the fresh final report was filed by the police for offences punishable under some other Sections of law which was not shown as an offence committed by the accused in the earlier final report in such circumstances, the Investigating Officer can file a fresh charge-sheet. In the instant case, already the Provident Fund Inspector has filed a complaint on the basis of which learned Judicial Magistrate. Dharapuram convicted the accused in S. T. C. No. 2858 of 1996 and terminated the proceedings on 30-1-1997. The present complaint in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 is for the offences committed by the second Inspector of Provident Fund for his wanton failure to file a complaint against the other accused on various offences for which they were liable and against the petitioners herein for such offences for which they were liable but were not prosecuted earlier. ( 6 ) WHILE considering these facts, it cannot be said that the present case in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Dharapuram is not maintainable after the termination of the entire proceedings in S. T. C. No. 2858 of 1996. The relevant sections which arise for our consideration are Sections 195 and 340, Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) SECTION 195, Cr. P. C. deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. In sub-clause (b) (i) to Section 195, Cr. P. C. the offences under Sections 193, 195, 199 I. P. C. are there sub-clause (b) (iii) includes criminal, conspiracy under Section 120-B, I. P. C. and all the offences which no Court can take cognizance as contemplated under Section 196 against a public servant. Section 218, I. P. C. deals with public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to move person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Section 218, I. P. C. deals with public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to move person from punishment or property from forfeiture. ( 8 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Mata Dhin and Others have held: The object of this section is to protect present from being vexatiously prosecuted upon inadequate materials or insufficient grounds by person actuated by malice or ill-will or friolity of disposition at the instance of private individuals for the offences specified therein. The provisions of this section no doubt are mandatory and the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offence mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned as required by the section without which the trial under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code becomes void ab initio; ( 9 ) FROM this decision, it is clear that a written complaint is a sine qua non to initiate a criminal proceedings against the persons under the above sections. The present complaint pending in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram is not by a public servant and only by the complainant, who is a private individual. Therefore, the maintainability of the complaint in respect of the aforesaid offences cannot be admitted. ( 10 ) SECTION 340, Cr. P. C. falls under Chapter XXVI Provisions as to offences affecting the administration of justice. Section 340, Cr. P. C. deals with procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195, Cr. P. C. This Court in Vimala v. Ranjini Murugan And Others has held: Now the application filed by the petitioner is for making a complaint of offences under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. The crucial question which has to be decided is whether the petitioner who is not a party to the proceeding at all can be permitted to invoke the provision of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The power under Section 340, Cr1. P. C. is a drastic power which makes certain conduct in relation to a judicial proceeding in the nature of making a false declaration or giving false evidence punishable. The power under Section 340, Cr1. P. C. is a drastic power which makes certain conduct in relation to a judicial proceeding in the nature of making a false declaration or giving false evidence punishable. This power cannot be permitted to be utilised by a party to serve his own ends or to satisfy his own urge for revenge as seems to have been done in the present case. Proceeding under Section 340, Cr1. P. C. is not intended the serve personal ends of parties. The provisions are certainly not enacted to be utilised for the benefit of an individual such loss they can be invoked by one who is not directly connected with the suit or the proceeding in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The provisions of Section 340, Cr1. P. C. are a safeguard against criminal prosecution on insufficient grounds filed against a party by his opponent motivated by a revengeful desire to harass or spit the opponent. ( 11 ) WHEN we consider the present case, the default committed by the management college and its administrators shown as A2 to A6 in the complaint were informed by the first respondent, who was the Lecturer in the first accused college. In the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the complainant/first respondent on various other grounds and he was suspended from service from the afternoon of 16-9-1997 pending enquiry. On receipt of the information, as per the orders of the superior officer, the second respondent herein Provident Fund Inspector, Erode filed a case against three of the accused, which was taken on file in S. T. C. No. 2858 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram and they were found guilty, convicted and sentenced to pay fine. As the complainant/first respondent felt that the accused in S. T. C. No. 2858 of 1996 were not prosecuted for proper offences and that the second respondent Provident Fund Inspector being a public servant has failed to prosecute the accused in the said case by filing proper charge-sheet against them bringing out all the offences committed by them, he has filed the private complaint which was taken on file by learned Judicial Magistrate. Dharapuram in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 - The facts of the present case are such that the said complaint has been filed by the complainant Anandasekaran Selvarajan on account of enmity with the accused. He has also filed a complaint for the prosecution of the Provident Fund Inspector Erode. In such circumstances, the decision of this Court stated supra says that the power conferred under Section 340, Cr. P. C. cannot be permitted to be utilised by a party to serve his own ends of to satisfy his own urge for revenue. Therefore, it is a fit case wherein the complaint can be quashed. ( 12 ) A public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture can be punished. The present petitioners are not public servants. The only public servant in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 is the second respondent/first accused, who is not a petitioner herein. For offences under Sections 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the Employers Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provision) Act, 1952; the accused concerned were already convicted in S. T. C. 2858 of 1996. The contention of the complainant that the accused were not convicted under Sections 14 (1-A) and 14 (2) of the said Act cannot be accepted since they were already convicted under Sections 14 (2 ). Sections 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the said Act go together. When the Court finds the accused guilty under Section 14 (2), there need not be any separate punishment for Section 14 (1 ). There is no Section as 14 (1a) Section 14 (AA) deals with enhanced punishment in certain cases after previous conviction. It is not the case herein. Therefore, when once the petitioners on whom the complaint was filed were convicted there need not be any further complaint against them for the very same offence. The complaint has been filed to take revenge on the petitioners herein and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Section 482, Cr. P. C. is to prevent abuse of the process of the said Court and to secure the ends of justice. ( 13 ) IN the result, Cri. O. P. No. 9369 of 1998 is allowed and C. C. No. 103 of 1998 pending against the petitioners who are accused Nos. P. C. Section 482, Cr. P. C. is to prevent abuse of the process of the said Court and to secure the ends of justice. ( 13 ) IN the result, Cri. O. P. No. 9369 of 1998 is allowed and C. C. No. 103 of 1998 pending against the petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 to 6 in that case is hereby quashed, Consequently. Cri. M. P. Nos. 3807 and 3808 of 1998 stand dismissed as unnecessary. Petition allowed.