Judgment :- Accused No.1 in Crime No.193/2004 registered on the file of Ayilpatti Police Station, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District for the offences punishable under Sections 469, 471, 211, 182, 167 and 109 IPC and Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has brought-forth this petition to quash the said FIR invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition can be briefly stated as follows:- As on the date of filing of the petition, P.Nallusamy, the petitioner herein was the Secretary of Coimbatore Agricultural Marketing Committee, a Government Department. Previously he was working as the secretary of Salem Agricultural Marketing Committee between 21.01.1999 to 14.02.2002. On 09.04.1999, the petitioner sent a complaint in writing to the Inspector of Police, Namagiripettai Police Station stating that he received complaints from agriculturists, traders and the Secretary of Rasipuram Agricultural Traders Cooperative Marketing Society, Rasipuram to the effect that certain unknown persons posing themselves to be officers of the "Flying Squad" of the Salem Marketing committee intercepted the vehicles of traders and agriculturists and extracted money from them. It had also been stated in the complaint that there was no such "Flying Squad" in the Salem Marketing Committee. The Inspector of Police had been requested by the petitioner to take appropriate action against the persons indulging in such illegal activities. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.226/1999 on the file of Ayilpatti Police station for offences punishable under Section 419 and 384 IPC. The Inspector of Police, Rasipuram took up the investigation of the case and informed the petitioner herein by his letter dated 20.04.1999 that on investigation he came to know that the 3rd Respondent herein who was working as Supervisor in Karumanthurai Agricultural Regulated Market and one Mr.Chinnasamy, Office Assistant in the same market along with a private car driver named Raja were responsible for the illegal acts alleged in the complaint and that they were also arrested by the police in connection with the said case. After completion of investigation, a final report was submitted, which was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram as C.C.No.12/2001. After trial all the three persons who were charged with the above said offences were acquitted by judgment dated 17.07.2003. After completion of investigation, a final report was submitted, which was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram as C.C.No.12/2001. After trial all the three persons who were charged with the above said offences were acquitted by judgment dated 17.07.2003. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent herein issued a lawyers notice on 04.06.2004 claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the false complaint and malicious prosecution. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent herein gave a complaint in writing to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, alleged that he was a member of Scheduled Caste, whereas the petitioner herein was a caste Hindu; that since he was not amenable to the demand made by the petitioner herein for making payment of Rs.1,000/-per month as regular illegal gratification, the petitioner herein fabricated four complaints in the names of members of his community against the 3rd respondent herein; that the petitioner conspired with the then Inspector of Police, Rasipuram to foist a case against the petitioner in Crime No.226/1999; that as already arranged between the petitioner and the Inspector of Police, the petitioner was arrested and remanded and had to go through the ordeal of facing the trial and that all these harassments were made only because the 3rd respondent herein happened to be a member of Scheduled Caste whereas the petitioner happened to be a caste Hindu. The said complaint was transmitted to Aiyilpatti Police Station by the Deputy Superintendent of Police whereupon Crime No.193/2004 came to be registered against the petitioner herein and three other persons for the offences punishable under Section 469, 471, 211, 182, 167 R/w 109 IPC and offences under Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(1)(1X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal has been shown to be the investigating officer in the FIR. The case was registered on 27.07.2004 and the FIR was received by the Judicial Magistrate on 29.07.2004. Immediately thereafter, the present petition was filed on 30.07.2004. 4. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal has been shown to be the investigating officer in the FIR. The case was registered on 27.07.2004 and the FIR was received by the Judicial Magistrate on 29.07.2004. Immediately thereafter, the present petition was filed on 30.07.2004. 4. The petitioner in his petition has contended that he had not given complaint against any particular individual in connection with the alleged extortion of money from the traders and agriculturists; that the complaint was given by him against unknown persons, that too based on written complaints of the agriculturists, traders etc., based on which Crime No.226/1999 was actually registered against unknown persons; that only after investigation, the involvement of the petitioner and other two persons came to light pursuant to which they were arrested and prosecuted; that they did not get honourable acquittal but were acquitted giving benefit of doubt; that there was no motive or ill-feeling against the 3rd respondent herein in preferring the complaint and that the present complaint against him was nothing but an attempted revenge for the bonafide prosecution of the 3rd respondent and others in the former case, namely Crime No.226/1999 (C.C.No.12/2001). It is the further contention of the petitioner, as found in the petition averments, that the contents of the complaint do not make out a prima-facie case against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Based on the said contentions, the petitioner herein has prayed for an order quashing the FIR registered against him and three other persons in Crime No.193/2004 on the file of Aiyilpatti Police Station. 5. Based on the said contentions, the petitioner herein has prayed for an order quashing the FIR registered against him and three other persons in Crime No.193/2004 on the file of Aiyilpatti Police Station. 5. Contending that a case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for offences punishable under Sections 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 based on the complaint of the 3rd respondent herein; that the said complaint had been preferred in order to take vengeance on the petitioner herein for the prosecution of the 3rd respondent herein and others for offences under Section 419 and 384 I.P.C. in Crime No.226/1999 on the file of Ayilpatti Police Station (C.C.No.12/2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram); that the complaint had been preferred falsely and that the allegations found in the complaint were not enough to make out a prima-facie case against the petitioner herein for the alleged offences, the petitioner has sought for an order quashing the above said FIR. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the very fact that the petitioner on receipt of the complaints from the agriculturists, traders etc., gave complaint to the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram informing him that some unknown miscreants posing themselves to be members of "flying squad" of Salem Agricultural Marketing Committee, had indulged in extracting money from the agriculturists and traders while they were transporting agricultural produce to the nearby marketing centres; that the case itself was registered against unknown persons; that only on investigation the involvement of the 3rd respondent and others were found out pursuant to which they were arrested and prosecuted, would show that there was no malice on the part of the petitioner in lodging the complaint in the former case against the 3rd respondent and others and that quashing the FIR in Crime No.193/2004 registered against the petitioner herein alone shall meet the ends of justice preventing miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued further that the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(i) (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not attracted by the contents of the complaint and hence for that reason also, the FIR must be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued further that the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(i) (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not attracted by the contents of the complaint and hence for that reason also, the FIR must be quashed. 7. The arguments advanced in reply to the said contentions have also been heard and this court paid its anxious consideration to the same. The materials available on records were also perused. 8. Upon such a consideration and after perusing the records, this court comes to the conclusion that the present petition for quashing the FIR cannot be allowed. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used, that too with circumspection, to prevent abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice. Normally, the court shall not be inclined to quash the First Information Report on the ground that false and incorrect allegations are made out of ill-will and malice. This is because, complaint is the first information to the police setting the criminal law in motion and the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made therein has to be found out by the investigating agency during investigation. The investigation may result in the filing of a charge-sheet based on which the accused may be prosecuted or in the submission of a referred charge sheet when it is found that the allegations are not correct. Therefore, when the investigation is in the nascent stage and the same is yet to be completed, no opinion can be expressed by the court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 regarding the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The only ground on which the FIR can be quashed is when no cognizable case is made out even if the allegations found in the complaint (FIR) are to be taken as true. While dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR, the court should not embark upon a rowing enquiry as to whether the allegations could be true or not or whether the allegations made are malafide. No evaluation of the allegations or the evidence collected by the investigating agency should be made by the High Court while dealing with the petition under Section 482 to quash either the FIR or the charge-sheet. No evaluation of the allegations or the evidence collected by the investigating agency should be made by the High Court while dealing with the petition under Section 482 to quash either the FIR or the charge-sheet. Upon carefully considering the records, this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case that the allegations made in the complaint are not enough to make out a prima-facie case for an offence punishable under any one of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code cited in the First Information Report. Even the penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cited in the FIR, namely Sections 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of the said Act are clearly attracted by the averments made in the complaint. 9. Though the petitioner might have lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram stating that he received complaint about the extraction of money by unknown persons from the agriculturists and traders posing themselves to be members of "flying squad" of Salem Agricultural Marketing Committee and in fact Crime No.226/1999 was registered against unknown persons, there are clear averments to the effect that with a view to maliciously prosecute the 3rd respondent herein, a member of the Scheduled Caste, the petitioner had not only fabricated complaints but also made prior arrangements with the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram to foist the case against the 3rd respondent herein. Clear averments have been made that prior arrangements had been made to arrest the 3rd respondent and prosecute him and that the same would be revealed by the fact that on the very next day of registering the case, the Inspector of Police chose to send a written communication to the petitioner herein informing him that the 3rd respondent and others were found to be the persons involved in the act of extortion and that they had been arrested. FIR in Crime No.226/1999 was registered on 19.04.1999 at 11.00 AM. The complaint was said to be signed on 09.03.1999 but the same was said to be received on 19.04.1999. FIR in Crime No.226/1999 was registered on 19.04.1999 at 11.00 AM. The complaint was said to be signed on 09.03.1999 but the same was said to be received on 19.04.1999. On 20.04.1999 itself, the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram, had sent a letter to the petitioner herein informing him that on 19.04.1999 itself at about 1.00 PM driver of the Ambassador car bearing registration number MSR 1180 was arrested through whom the involvement of the 3rd respondent was ascertained and that at about 2.30 PM on the same day the 3rd respondent was arrested. 10. In the FIR registered in Crime No.226/1999, the following particulars are also found. The above said recital found in the said FIR gives a prima-facie impression that there should have been concoction before registering FIR as the said particulars are found incorporated in the FIR itself. It shows the Inspector of Police contacted the petitioner over phone and asked him to send the true copies of the complaints of the agriculturists and traders and only thereafter, the copies of the said complaint were sent through one Mr.M.R.Somu. Hence the said complaints which formed part of the FIR would have reached the hands of Inspector of Police, Rasipuram only after 2.00 PM on 19.04.1999. The FIR itself is said to be drafted at 11.00 AM on the said date. It is also a fact that all the persons examined in C.C.No.12/2001 denied their sending complaints to the petitioner. The said case, in which the 3rd respondent was one of the accused, admittedly ended in acquittal. Of course the court which tried the case ultimately acquitted him and others stating that they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. But a reading of the judgment will reveal that clear finding had been recorded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, alleging fabrication of documents in the names of agriculturists and traders and maliciously prosecuting the 3rd respondent, a member of the Scheduled Caste and contending that it was done because he happened to be a member of Scheduled Caste and refused to concede the illegal demands made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has preferred the complaint against the petitioner herein and other persons. The allegations made in the complaint that there was connivance between the petitioner and the Inspector of Police in foisting the case against the 3rd respondent cannot be dismissed as without any basis. 11. The Honble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with such a situation in "State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others" reported in "1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335" and enumerated the following circumstances under which alone the First Information Report could be quashed. "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down and precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without any order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without any order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 1)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 12. The Honble Supreme Court has also made the following observations in the very same judgment in paragraph 103:- "103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 13. Applying the above said principles to the facts of the case on hand, this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not brought the case within any one of the above said seven grounds. Under these circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR in Crime No.193/2004 deserves to be quashed is legally unsustainable and the arguments advanced in support of his contention has got to be discountenanced. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.