Judgment : 1. A private complaint has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Chess Association (hereinafter referred to as “ Chess Association”) with the Registration No. TN/PKM/S. No. 81/2002 represented by its Secretary against the petitioners/accused herein, who are the office bearers of the Tamil Nadu State Chess Association (in Short “State Chess Association”) Chennai for offences punishable under Section 120-B406, 409, 417, 420 and 500 I.P.C. 2. The petitioners have approached this Hon‘ble Court for quashing the proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State Chess Association of the petitioners are the real association and the complainant/respondent for the purpose of wreaking vengeance, has filed the present private complaint without any materials to substantiate the offence and suppressing certain facts. 3. It is submitted that initially the State Chess Association was formed in the name and style “Madras State Chess Association” and it was registered in No. 48/1960. This Association in the said name existed upto the year 1995. For non-filling of the returns, it has been declared as defunct. An appeal has been preferred by the said Association and after passing an elaborate order, the delay in filling of the returns has been condoned. After approving the accounts for the relevant period the name of the State Chess Association has been changed to “Tamil Nadu State Chess Association” and the same has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. This has approved by the Registrar of Societies, District Registrars office, Chennai, Central, Chennai -18 by order dated 17.9.2003. Under such circumstances, the respondent/complainant claiming himself to be the office bearers of the Chess association, lodged a private complaint. On the same set of facts and allegations, on earlier occasion, four such complaints have been given against the petitioners dated 18.5.2002, 17.6.2002, 12.3.2002 and 8.4.2005. After registration of the cases, full- fledged investigation has been taken up and the cases have been referred as mistake of fact. No further proceedings have been initiated subsequently, in all those cases. The present complaint has been filed and the learned Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C. No. 9289 of 2005. On a perusal of the complaint, no specific instance to attract the offence has been mentioned. No further proceedings have been initiated subsequently, in all those cases. The present complaint has been filed and the learned Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C. No. 9289 of 2005. On a perusal of the complaint, no specific instance to attract the offence has been mentioned. Prima facie materials are not made available to take cognisance of the offence and in spite of that the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the case and issued process erroneously. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners and the respondent filed writ petitions to declare, their Association as lawful, real and formed in accordance with law, vide W.P. Nos. 32077 of 2002 (by the petitioner) and W.P. No. 7238 of 2003 (by the respondent). A common order has been passed on 29.10.2003 by this Hon‘ble High Court after hearing both the parties, which is as follows: “In view of my findings that said Act is not applicable to the Registration of an Association even in the name of “Tamil Nadu” Which Association deals with only in sports activities, the mere fact that order of Inspector General of Registration directing registration of the 4th respondent Society as an Association, the date of registration would relate back to the date of application cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, the challenge to the registration of the petitioner society in the Tamil Nadu Chess Association is also not sustainable. For the reasons stated above, I find every force in the contentions of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition No. 32077 of 2002 is allowed and Writ petition No. 7235 of 2007 is dismissed. 5. When the writ petition of the complainant/respondent has been dismissed, it has to be presumed that the complainant association is no more the Chess Association. At the time of filing of the private complaint during 2005 such adjudication of the writ petition were not at all mentioned and it has been suppressed. In such circumstances, the complainant/respondent do no have any locus standi at all to file the present complaint. 6. On a perusal of the allegations and averments made in the complaint, seven contemporaneous materials have been omitted from mentioning. Some receipts issued by the petitioners State Chess association have been relied on and those persons, in whose names, the receipts were issued are not the complainants. 6. On a perusal of the allegations and averments made in the complaint, seven contemporaneous materials have been omitted from mentioning. Some receipts issued by the petitioners State Chess association have been relied on and those persons, in whose names, the receipts were issued are not the complainants. It has been repeatedly claimed that the complainant is the office bearer of the Chess Association. Under such circumstances, sought to quash the proceedings. 7. Per contrathe learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that locus standing is unknown to criminal law and in support of the contention relied on a case reported in A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak , AIR 1984 SC 718 : (1984) 2 SCC 500 wherein it has been held as follows: “Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded statutory provision... While Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits any one to approach the Magistrate with a complaint, it does not prescribe any qualification the complainant is required to fulfil to be eligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for a complainant is contemplated specific provision have been made such as to be found in Section 195 to 199 of the Cr. P.C. These specific provisions clearly indicate that in the absence of any such statutory provision, a Locus Standi of a complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. In other words, the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion remains intact unless contra-indicated by a statutory provision. This general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a police that an offence i. e. An act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force (See Section 2(n), Cr. P.C) is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the State representing the people which would exclude any element of private vendatta or vengeances. The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the State representing the people which would exclude any element of private vendatta or vengeances. If such is the public policy underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission made punishable by law to the notice of the authority competent to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being once of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittle down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a straight-jacket formula of Locus Standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception. To hold that such an exception exists that a private complaint for offences of corruption committed by public servant is not maintainable, the Court would require an unambiguous statutory provision and a tangled web of argument for drawing a far-fetched implication, cannot be a substitute for a express statutory provision.....” If is further contended that therefore, the petitioners are entitled to proceed against the complainant and all other matters have to be agitated before the trial Court. 8. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. 9. The complainant/respondent has suppressed several facts and circumstances in the private complaint .On four prior occasions, similar such allegations have been levelled against the petitioners/accused and the outcome of the same has not been mentioned in the complaint. Though a writ petition has been filed by both the parties, claiming that they are the real association, a final has been passed in the writ petition, wherein, the State Chess Association of the petitioners has been upheld. Though a writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Court, till it is reversed the order passed by this Hon‘ble Court, will hold good. On a perusal of the complaint, such an order passed by this Hon‘ble Court dated 23.10.2003 was not at all mentioned. The present complaint is dated 21.3.2005. The respondent/complainant in his capacity as the Secretary of the Chess Association filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate as if such Chess Association, was in existence on the date of the taking cognisance of the case. 10. The present complaint is dated 21.3.2005. The respondent/complainant in his capacity as the Secretary of the Chess Association filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate as if such Chess Association, was in existence on the date of the taking cognisance of the case. 10. On a perusal of the private complaint on file, it appears that an omnibus and sweeping allegations has been made against the petitioners/accused and particulars have not been furnished to substantiate the offence. On the contrary, the petitioners have filed the orders passed by the Government, as well as the Registrar of Societies to prove their stand. The account of the State Chess Association of the petitioners have been scrutinised and G.O. Rt. No.265 dated 9.6.2003 has been passed in this regard. 11. Therefore, the order passed by this Hon‘ble Court dated 29.3.2003, orders passed by the Government dated 9.6.2003 and the Registrar of the Societies dated 17.9.2003, have been suppressed while approaching the learned Magistrate by way of a complaint. It appears that the complainant has approached the Court with a mala fide intention. The case relied on by the counsel for the respondent/complainant in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is not applicable. 12. On a perusal of the materials, I find that the continuation of the proceedings before the trial Court will be an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings are quashed and the petition is allowed accordingly. Consequently, connected Crl. M. Ps are closed.