Judgment :- COMMON ORDER For the sake of convenience and for easy reference Crl. O.P. Nos. 31509/2003, 26986/2003, 31507/2003, 31508/2003, 31506/2003, 29980/2003, 29977/2003, 29979/2003 and 29978/2003 are herein after referred to as the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth crl. O.Ps. 2. Criminal original petitions 26986, and 31506 to 31509 of 2003 have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in PRC No. 13 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial MagistrateNo.I, Tiruchirappalli and in Cr. Nos. 1271/2001, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Contonment Police Station, Trichy and Cr. Nos. 266/2003, 23/2003, 292/2003 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichy and quash the same and Crl. O.P. Nos. 29977 to 29980 of 2003 have been filed to transfer the above said crime numbers to C.B.C.I.D., or any other agency for investigation. 3. The case of the petitioner is that due to political rivalry between his uncle and one Dhansingh, Thamarai Selvan and Yuvaraj Kumar, all these complaints have been filed against him and his family members by the defacto-complainants in each case, at the instigation of the said persons; that all the above said three persons are notorious criminals having political influence; that the petitioner was also falsely detained under Act 14/82 wherein the said Thamarai selvan, Dhansingh and Yuvaraj Kumar were cited as mahazar witnesses; that he is a law college student and in order to spoil the future of the petitioner false complaints have been lodged against the petitioner and due to the detention, he could not appear for his examinations and complete the law course; that the respondent police at the instigations of the said persons, have registered the false cases against the petitioner and his family members and the respondent Police are acting at the instance and influence of the said persons. 4. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the said Thamarai selvan, Dhansingh and Yuvaraj Kumar are involved in 14 criminal cases all over Tamil Nadu and also in the adjacent States, but the respondent never cared to detain them under Act 14/1982; that when Ram Kumar, brother-in-law of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the above cases by this Court and when he was about to surrender before the Court to produce sureties, he was arrested by the respondent with mala fide intention and ulterior motive and a false case was registered against the said Ram Kumar in Cr.No.341/2003 and the respondent has hurried in filing the charge sheet wherein only the relatives of the said Dhansingh were cited as witnesses by the respondent and statements have been obtained by other witnesses under threat and force. 5. The petitioner would further submit that the respondent Police, under the guise of investigation, are threatening some people to give false statements against the petitioner and his family members and if the respondent is allowed to continue the further investigation, it will cause serious prejudice and hardship to him and hence would pray for the change of investigating agency. 6. From among all the above Criminal Original Petitions number nine, the first 5 petitions, viz., Crl. O.P. Nos. 29686, 31506 to 31509 of 2003 have been filed by the petitioners therein barring Crl. O.P. Nos. 26986 of 2003 all others have been filed by more than one person varying in number from one petition and the other. For instance in the first Crl. O.P. above, the petitioners are five in number and in the second it is the sole petitioner viz. Ramkumar, who is the accused therein, in the third petition the petitioners are 3 in number, in the 4th petition above, the petitioners are 4 and in the 5th petition the petitioners are 5 in number and all these petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking to quash the case registered respectively in Cr. No. 292/2003, PRC No. 13 of 2003, Cr. No. 266/2003, 23/2003 and 1271/2001. 7. So far as the first criminal revision petition is concerned, the case has been registered on the file of the respondent police, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichy 9 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 452, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of P.P.D.L. Act. 8. No. 266/2003, 23/2003 and 1271/2001. 7. So far as the first criminal revision petition is concerned, the case has been registered on the file of the respondent police, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichy 9 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 452, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of P.P.D.L. Act. 8. So far as the second criminal revision petition above is concerned, the case has been registered by the respondent police, Ramji Nagar Police Station in their Cr. No. 341 of 2003 for commission of offences under Sections 386, 506(ii) altered into 392 and 397 IPC and the said case having been charge sheeted, has been taken on file in PRC No. 13 of 2003 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. This is also praying to quash the said PRC No. 13 of 2003. 9. Regarding the third criminal original petition is concerned, the case has been registered by the same police in Cr. No. 266 of 2003 under Sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. in which the investigation is pending . 10. Regarding the 4th criminal original petition is concerned, the case has been registered by the same police in Cr. No. 23 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 358, 336 and 307 IPC and in this case also, the petitioners therein have prayed for quashing the F.I.R. and the same is pending investigation. 11. So far as the 5th criminal original petition is concerned, it has also been filed praying to quash the F.I.R. registered by the contonment police station in Cr. No. 1271 of 2001 under Sections 147, 341, 323, r/w 149 IPC. This case has been registered against all the family members. 12. All these cases in all the above crime numbers and P.R.C. Number have been sought to be quashed by the petitioners herein. Needless to mention that the petitioners mentioned in respect of each of the criminal original petitions above are the accused in the cases registered therein and they are all members of the one and the same family. Moreover, all the members barring the PRC case in the second criminal original petition, wherein alone there is only one accused, in all other cases, they are either 3,4, or 5 in number and the same accused have been repeated in all the cases registered by the Ramji Nagar Police and the Contonment Police, Trichy. 13. Crl. O.P. Nos. Moreover, all the members barring the PRC case in the second criminal original petition, wherein alone there is only one accused, in all other cases, they are either 3,4, or 5 in number and the same accused have been repeated in all the cases registered by the Ramji Nagar Police and the Contonment Police, Trichy. 13. Crl. O.P. Nos. 6 to 9 above have been filed respectively by the petitioners in Crl. O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 i.e. barring only Crl. O.P. No. 26986 of 2003, praying to transfer the case from the Ramji Nagar Police Station and the Contonment Police Station to C.B.C.I.D. or any other agency for investigation and since in the case relating to the second criminal original petition, on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet having been filed, no transfer has been sought for by the sole petitioner/accused therein and hence in all other 4 cases, the transfer has been sought for by the petitioners therein. 14. It is further relevant to point out that the petitioner Arulraj, who is figuring in 3 of the 5 cases registered above, is the head of the family being the father of Ramkumar, who is figuring in 4 of the 5 cases is his son and one Balakrishnan, who is also figuring in 4 out of 5 cases, is yet another son of Arulraj and Baskar is the son-in-law of Arulraj and all of them are living under one and the same roof at Ramji Nagar, Trichy-9. 15. 15. The strong case put up on the part of the petitioners is that on account of political rivalry in between the family of the petitioners and that of their uncles viz., Dhanasingh, Thamaraiselvan and Yuvaraj Kumar, all these complaints have been filed against them by the de-facto complainants in each case at their instigations; that all the three de-facto complainants are notorious criminals and having political patronage with the ruling faction and hence using their political influence, they were able to register all these cases; four of them in equal succession within a span of some months without any basis or specific occurrence having taken place, the respondent being a corrupt police official and lenient towards the ruling political party, yielding to pressure, has registered all the 4 out of 5 cases at the instigations of the said three persons and like wise the contonment police have also registered a case in their Cr. No. 1271 of 2001 which was the first of that kind foisted against the petitioners. 16. A close study had on the outer periphery in all the above cases registered against all of the family members barring one in which there is a sole accused i.e. PRC No. 13 of 2003 relating to the second crl. o.p. in all the other criminal original petitions all the members of the family are present. 17. Barring these series of cases registered, the first four under Ramji Nagar Police Station crime numbers and the last one under the contonment police station crime number, even during arguments it is stated that not a single case has been registered against any of the family members before and it seems that only making use of these cases registered as the ground cases, against two of the family members, the same police have invoked the relevant provisions of Act 14 of 1982 out of which one is said to have been scrapped as a false case by the committee and the other one is awaiting orders from the High Court. 18. 18. In the above scenario, during arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would take the Court to the nature of the complaints and would show that for registering the said cases, absolutely no proof need be necessary nor any proof broughtforth for a preliminary case being made out and without even any of those occurrences having taken place, have been imaginarily registered yielding to pressure of the rival group, who are said to be notorious and wielding political influence of the party ruling the State. Further in two of the above cases, that are cases connected to the second and third crl. o.ps., without assigning any reason or without any nexus, the sections under which initially the cases were registered for offences punishable under Sections 386 and 506(ii) have been altered to Sections 392 and 397 of I.P.C. thereby revealing that it is only for their pleasure they just altered the Sections and made rigorous without the ingredients either being satisfied in the complaint or in any other manner. 19. Further more, it could be seen that even assuming that hurts have been caused, no wound certificate is there to consolidate the version of the complainants and in cases of robbery or dacoity even no weapon of offences or the robbed article recovered so far in the investigation undertaken by the respondent and therefore, this Court has every reason to arrive at the conclusion that the cases registered by the respondents are only in the case diary and nowhere else much less in reality in any form since in the natural course what are all those indications, proofs, evidence, material objects etc. are necessary, none of such aspects seem to have been made available and therefore, the plea of the petitioners that these cases have been registered falsely against the members of the one and the same family at the instigations of those three persons indicated supra, who are said to be politically powerful and wielding their influence gets consolidated. 20. are necessary, none of such aspects seem to have been made available and therefore, the plea of the petitioners that these cases have been registered falsely against the members of the one and the same family at the instigations of those three persons indicated supra, who are said to be politically powerful and wielding their influence gets consolidated. 20. All these aspects coupled with the fact that throughout their life, there had been not a single case registered against them by any police muchless, the respondent herein, would further go to prove that the antecedents of the petitioners are clean and unblemished and only in quick succession all the 5 cases have been registered malafide without any proof or basis to wreck vengeance as a result of the political vendetta. Needless to mention that the respondents i.e. the Inspector of Police, Incharge of the Ramji Nagar Police Station and the contonment Police Station have done total injustice to the law and the legal system simply forgetting the fact that they have to discharge their lawful sovereign functions in the manner required under law and not in the manner directed by any individual or members of any political party. 21. Last but not the least that in spite of having registered all the above 5 cases barring one wherein the sections 386 and 506(ii) IPC have been altered into Sections 392 and 397 IPC artificially without any nexus or material evidence to both these sections since only a case under Sections 386 and 506(ii) has been made out as per the complaint whereas on investigation, the respondent/ Inspector of Ramji Nagar Police Station is able to arrive at different conclusions to charge sheet for different offences having different character and ingredients i.e. under Sections 392 and 397 IPC in order to make it as a PRC Case. In all other four cases, excepting the case registered in Cr. In all other four cases, excepting the case registered in Cr. No. 1271 of 2001 by the Contonment Police in the year 2001 itself, they have not yet completed the investigation so as to file a final report and therefore, this Court has every reason to arrive at the conclusion that only because they have been registered falsely not only at the instigations of those three persons but also without any actual occurrences having taken place, they are not able to file the charge sheet in spite of lapse of months and years and hence under this score also, the cases registered by the respondents in the above manner become liable only to be quashed. 22. So far as the case connected to Crl. O.P. No. 1 and 4 are concerned, the ingredients which are necessary for making out a case under Section 307 is nothing but the ingredients that are necessary for a case under Section 302 IPC since the intention, motive, preparation and the immediate cause which are necessary for a case of murder are also necessary for a case registered under Section 307 of I.P.C. since the assailants only plan to commit the murder and on account of some intervening circumstances, the murder gets averted and the case falls under Section 307 IPC. The peculiarity in the cases registered under this section there are no ingredients for the case being made out under Section 307 at all nor under Sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. as it is the case in the other two cases and simply, the respondents have registered the case in these Sections without any basis, there is no point in further permitting these cases to be carried on in the name of investigation and trial and earlier they are done away with better, it would serve the ends of justice and hence, the following order. In result, (i) The Crl. O.P. Nos. 31509/2003, 26986/2003, 31507/2003, 31508/2003, and 31506/2003, are allowed quashing the F.I.R. respectively in Cr. Nos. 292/2003, 266/2003, 23/2003 on the file of the respondent/ Inspector of Police, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichy and the Cr. No. 1271 of 2001 on the file of the respondent/ Inspector of Police, Contonment Police Station, Trichy and the PRC No. 13 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy. (ii) Crl. O.P. Nos. 6 to 9 in Nos. No. 1271 of 2001 on the file of the respondent/ Inspector of Police, Contonment Police Station, Trichy and the PRC No. 13 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy. (ii) Crl. O.P. Nos. 6 to 9 in Nos. 29980/2003, 29977/2003, 29979/2003 and 29978/2003 are dismissed as unnecessary. (iii) CRL.M.P.Nos.7614, 8256 to 8259 of 2003 are also dismissed.