Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.131 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram and quash the same. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons namely (1) Mahesh, Son of Subramani (2) Jessi, son of Sathyamoorthy (3) Charles, Son of Prakash (4) Panneer @ Anto panneer, Son of Anandan (5) Palani @ Anto Palani, Son of Raman (6) Santhakumar, Son of Sankar (7) Mohan, Son of Rajendran and (8) Parvendan, Son of Dakshinamoorthy have committed an alleged offence under sections 147, 294(b) and 353 of IPC. The said case has been registered by the respondent police in crime No.223 of 2006. The complaint reveals that the accused persons came to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram on 01.04.2006 at 11.00PM and threatened and questioned the Hospital Doctors and employees as to why the patient, namely Vasantha was dicharged and prevented the functioning of the hospital. Actually, the patient was not discharged. This happened in front of outpost Police. Further, the accused persons attempted to assault the R.M.O. when the Outpost Police intervened and stopped them. 3. The said complaint was registered by the respondent police. Supporting the prosecution case, nine witnesses have been mentioned, including a Police Constable. 4. Now, the petitioner is challenging the said complaint for the below mentioned reasons. The petitioner submits that the Sub-Inspector of Police investigated the matter and examined the complainant. Final Report has also been submitted. The petitioner is Accused No.8 and absconding accused. Further, the petitioner is a practising Advocate in Kancheepuram District. He is a Social Worker providing service to the poor people in and around Kancheepuram. He is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any offence, with ulterior motive, the respondent police implicated the petitioner as accused. There is no specific complaint against the petitioner. There is also no overt act attributed as against the petitioner by any of the witnesses in their respective 161 statements made out in the said offence. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the FIR, no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. It has not been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner had used abusive language against any specific person in the hospital. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the FIR, no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. It has not been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner had used abusive language against any specific person in the hospital. Likewise there is also no specific mention about the person on whom attempted assault was carried out by the petitioner. 6. When such is the case, the Court is warranted to interfere in the proceedings in C.C.No.131 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram and quash the same, as against the petitioner alone. Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition No.24167 of 2007 is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.