ORDER Crl.O.P.No. 12747 of 2007 is filed seeking to quash the case in Crime No. 340 of 2007 on the file of the E1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai. Crl.O.P.No. 12748 of 2007 is filed praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No. 8482 of 2006 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. 2. The de facto complainant/respondent having alleged that on 11.8.2006 at about 3 p.m. when he was coming out from the Court premises of the learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai after surrendering before the said Court, as per the directions of the High Court, three persons accosted him and proclaimed that they would abduct him to Athmananda Swamigal at Karur and kill him after collecting money from him, sought for registration of his complaint dated 11.8.2006 before the Inspector of Police, B1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai. 3. As the said complaint dated 11.8.2006 was not registered by the Inspector of Police, he laid a private complaint setting out the aforesaid occurrence before the learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, who on examination of the complaint along with 2 other witnesses took the private complaint on file. The said criminal proceedings taken cognizance by the learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai for offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code, is challenged in Criminal Original Petition No. 12748 of 2007. 4. Alleging that on 3.3.2007 at about 7 a.m., when the de facto complainant was at his residence, a group of more than 10 Goondas came to his residence and demanded to settle the dues to Athmananda Swamigal and withdraw the criminal case pending before the learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai to avoid serious consequences, he laid a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore. As the said case was not registered, the de facto complainant/respondent filed Crl.O.P.No. 7845 of 2007 before this Court, seeking registration of the complaint by the police concerned. Based on the direction flowed from this Court to register a case based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai on 6.3.2007, a case in Crime No. 340/2007 was registered by E1, Mylapore Police Station. The said criminal proceedings is under challenge in Crl.O.P.No. 12747 of 2007. 5. Based on the direction flowed from this Court to register a case based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai on 6.3.2007, a case in Crime No. 340/2007 was registered by E1, Mylapore Police Station. The said criminal proceedings is under challenge in Crl.O.P.No. 12747 of 2007. 5. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that inasmuch as the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No. 12748 of 2007 were not present at the scene of occurrence and wielded threat directly to the de facto complainant, they cannot be charged with the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code. As regards the other case in Crime No. 340 of 2007 on the file of E1, Mylapore Police Station, the learned senior counsel would submit that inasmuch as the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence, no offence under Sections 147 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code is made out. Just to harass the petitioner, who has already laid a complaint as against the complainant, these complaints have been filed. Therefore, both the cases are liable to be quashed, he contends. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would submit that the complaints as such reflects cognizable offences. The learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai having examined as many as 3 witnesses on the side of the complainant has chosen to take the case of file, having been satisfied that prima facie case was made out by the complainant. As regards the other case in Crime No. 340 of 2007 on the file of the E1, Mylapore Police Station, the case is being now investigated, as per the directions of this Court. When there is a clear averment which constitutes cognizable offence, the question of gagging the investigating agency does not arise. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would submit that both the petitions are liable to be dismissed, as they merit no consideration. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was some money transaction between the parties, which culminated in a criminal complaint at the instance of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 12747 of 2007 and the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 12748 of 2007. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was some money transaction between the parties, which culminated in a criminal complaint at the instance of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 12747 of 2007 and the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 12748 of 2007. A bald allegation has been made in the complaint dated 11.8.2006 as against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.12748 of 2007 to the effect that three persons proclaimed that they would entrust the complainant to Athmananda Swamigal at Karur and collect the money and thereafter liquidate him. There is no allegation in the said complaint that the three persons informed the de facto complainant that they were sent by Athamananda Swamigal at Karur to abduct and collect money from him. The Court finds that just for the purpose of implicating the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 12748 of 2007, who had already lodged a complaint against him, his name has been mischievously introduced in the complaint dated 11.8.2006. It is to be noted that as far as the second petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12748 of 2007 is concerned, there is virtually no allegation as against him. 8. In the sworn statement of the complainant, he has come out with a version that the first and second petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.12748 of 2007 were present at the scene of crime and wielded a threat to the complaint, the witnesses Murugan and Radhakrishnan have stated before the learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai that three persons having restrained the complainant proclaimed that they would take him to Athmananda Swamigal and do away with his life. Firstly, the statement of Murugan and Radhakrishnan, who were allegedly present at the time of the occurrence have not supported the statement of the complainant. Secondly, it is observed that the complainant has come out with a new version as though the first and second accused were present at the scene of occurrence and they also threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. 9. The very fact that directo role has been attributed to the petitioners only in the sworn statement of the complainant would go to show that the criminal action is trained with mala fides. 9. The very fact that directo role has been attributed to the petitioners only in the sworn statement of the complainant would go to show that the criminal action is trained with mala fides. The learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai who having been persuaded by the sworn statement of the complainant to the effect that the first the second accused were present at the time of occurrence and threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences has taken the case on file for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code. As rightly pointed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No. 12748 of 2007 were not present at the scene of occurrence as per the First Information Report, which was originally launched before B1, North Beach Police Station, No offence under Sections 341 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code is made out prima facie as against the petitioners in the First Information Report. Further it is found out that the spurious complaint has been launched in a mischievous way just to wreak vengeance against the petitioners, having been aggrieved by the complaint already lodged by the first petitioner herein against the complaint. 10. Coming to the other case in Crime No. 340 of 2007 on the file of the E1, Mylapore Police Station, the second respondent has given a complaint alleging that on 3.3.2007 at about 7 a.m., when he was at his residence, a group of more than ten Goondas demanded him to pay the dues to Athmananda and withdraw the criminal case pending before the learned 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 11. It is true that as per the directions of this Court, the said case was registered. As the time when a direction was issued for the registration of the case, the allegation found in the complaint alone was gone into by this Court to see whether there was any prima facie case made out, but the back ground of launching such a complaint was not brought to the notice of this Court. Further, there was no direction from this Court to register a case as against the petitioner. Allegation has been made as against the Goondas, who allegedly wielded threat as against the de facto complainant. 12. Further, there was no direction from this Court to register a case as against the petitioner. Allegation has been made as against the Goondas, who allegedly wielded threat as against the de facto complainant. 12. The allegation found in the complaint as such does not make out a case as against Athmananda for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, as he was not at all present at the scene of occurrence as per the First Information Report. 13. It is found that there had been some money transaction between the parties. A criminal complaint was already lodged by the petitioner as against the second respondent. The second respondent has also lodged a complaint as against the petitioner and another. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the de facto complainant has come out with a cock and bull story time and again that some rowdy elements came and threatened him with dire consequences. In the background of the transaction between the complainant and the petitioner, the Court finds that this sort of flimsy allegations have been made against the petitioner, who is an age old religious head just to wreak vengeance, as he had already given a complaint with a fond hope of recovering some amount from him. 14. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State, NCT of Delhi and Others AIR 1999 SC 1216 : (1999) 3 SCC 259 observed as follows: “It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing a FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so benefit of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.” 15. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in M. N. Damani v. S. K. Sinha and Others AIR 2001 SC 2037 : (2001) 5 SCC 156 : (2001) MLJ (Crl) 862 has held that two aspects, viz. (i) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence and (ii) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue, are to be satisfied before deciding whether any criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed. 16. First of all, it is found that the allegations as such do not prima facie establish the offences under Sections 341 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 147 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. respectively as against the petitioners. Further, the very same set of motivated allegations have been time and again made by the complainant just to pay a score against the petitioner, who had already lodged a complaint as against the complainant. Therefore, the Court finds that permitting the prosecution to continue its proceedings will not be in the interest of justice. The factual foundation laid in both the complaints also was not well laid as against the petitioners. These criminal proceedings have been initiated on flimsy allegations to settle a score as against the 65 year old Samiyar, who had already launched prosecution as against the complainant. The Court finds that such a motivated criminal prosecution initiated by the complainant cannot be permitted to proceed. 17. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 340 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent/E1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai and Crl.M.P.No. 8482 of 2006 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai stand quashed. Both the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Petitions allowed.