JUDGMENT : 1. Crl.O.P.No.17507 of 2009, 28251 of 2008, 15832 of 2008 and 13523 of 2009The above petitions are filed seeking a direction to call for the records in Cr.Nos.341 of 2009, 949 and 948 of 2008 and 256 of 2009 respectively on the file of the respondent and quash the same. 2. Since all the cases are registered and pending investigation on the file of Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, CID Division, Vellore, who is the respondent in all the cases a common order is passed. The petitioner is said to be the owner of the vehicle involved in a crime contravening the provisions of Secs.6(4) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 4(ii) and (iii) of TNSC (RTCS) Orders 1982 r/w 403 IPC 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions to quash the First Information Report are as follows: Crl.O.P.No.15832 of 2008: On 6.6.2008 around 4.00 p.m, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID Division and his party were checking the movements of the vehicle at Pathrapalli Check Post of Vellore District. One Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-03-U-8713 was stopped by the parties and on checking, they found 100 bags of PDS rice of 50 kgs each without any valid permit. The vehicle as well as the PDS rice were seized and on the statement recorded from the driver of the lorry viz., one Murugesan, it was found that he had taken the vehicle on hire from one Senthil kumar, who is the owner of the lorry and the petitioner engaged him for transportation of 100 bags of PDS rice to Bangarupet of Karnataka to be transported via Andhra Pradesh and to be sold in black market. Thereupon he along with his cleaner Suresh alias Mohan loaded the PDS rice and were proceeding to Bangarupett and were intercepted. The case was registered in Cr.No.948 of 2008 against the driver viz., Murgesan, Suresh alias Mohan and the petitioner, as owner of the rice and SenthilKumar, as owner of the vehicle for the offence punishable under Secs. 6(4) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 4(ii) and (iii) of TNSC (RTCS) Orders 1982 r/w 403 IPC. 4. The case was registered in Cr.No.948 of 2008 against the driver viz., Murgesan, Suresh alias Mohan and the petitioner, as owner of the rice and SenthilKumar, as owner of the vehicle for the offence punishable under Secs. 6(4) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 4(ii) and (iii) of TNSC (RTCS) Orders 1982 r/w 403 IPC. 4. Crl.O.P.No.28251 of 2008: on 7.6.2008, around 10.35 a.m, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies and their parties were checking the vehicle movement and they were also in look out for the petitioner, who is involved in the crime number 748 of 2009 dated 5.6.2008. The parties went to Pernampet and at Kamaraj Nagar, Pernampet, they intercepted the petitioner who was riding his Bajaj motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-M 5834 carrying two small bags of PDS rice. On seeing the food cell party, he left the motor cycle along with PDS rice and his cell phone and ran away. The Inspector of Police seized the contraband and registered a case in Cr.No.949 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Secs. 6(4) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 4(ii) and (iii) of TNSC (RTCS) Orders 1982 r/w 403 IPC. 5. Crl.O.P.No.13523 of 2009: On 9.6.2009, around 3.00 a.m, the Special Tahsildar of Flying Squad was checking the vehicle movement at Pernampet Pathrapalli village. They intercepted a Van (Tata 207) bearing Registration No.TN-21-L-8768. When the flying squads tried to stop the lorry, the driver of the lorry, drove the lorry rashly for another half a kilometer, stopped the lorry on the road side and disappeared. 6. When the Tahsildar examined the lorry, he found 50 bags of PDS rice of 50 kgs each. On enquiry, it was found that the rice belongs to the petitioner and the same was being transported to one Kotta Senthil of Andhrapradesh. On the report of the Tahsildar, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.256 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Secs. 6(4) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 4(ii) and (iii) of TNSC (RTCS) Orders 1982 r/w 403 IPC. 7. Crl.O.P.No.17505 of 2009 On 24.7.2009 around 6.30 p.m, when the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies and their parties were on the vehicle check up at Ambur - Pernampet road, they intercepted a Tata Sumo bearing Registration NO.A.P.03.E-4599 and they found 25 bags of rice each weighing 50 kg. 7. Crl.O.P.No.17505 of 2009 On 24.7.2009 around 6.30 p.m, when the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies and their parties were on the vehicle check up at Ambur - Pernampet road, they intercepted a Tata Sumo bearing Registration NO.A.P.03.E-4599 and they found 25 bags of rice each weighing 50 kg. The statement of the driver Suresh was recorded who had stated that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner and a case was registered in Cr.No.341 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Secs. 6(4) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 4(ii) and (iii) of TNSC (RTCS) Orders 1982 r/w 403 IPC. 8. Aggrieved by registration of various cases against the petitioner, he has filed the present petitions on the ground that he has nothing to do with the PDS Rice and he is neither owner of the contraband nor the owner of the vehicle and only based on the confession of the co-accused, he has been implicated. 9. It is also contended that the wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent police alleging that on 7.6.2008 the respondent police party trespassed into her house and under the guise of search they have taken a cash of Rs.40,000/-, a Nokia Cell phone of value of Rs.7,300/- and also taken the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-5834 and enraged by such complaint, the respondents have been registering case after case without any material against the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a complaint has been given by the wife of the petitioner on 7.6.2008 and since the authorities have not taken any action, she approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction in WP No.16394 of 2008 and this court passed an order on 4.9.2008 directing the Inspector of Police, Food Cell to consider the representation and pass orders. 11. The learned counsel submitted that since the wife of the petitioner initiated legal action against the atrocities of the respondent police, they have implicated the petitioner in four cases. 11. The learned counsel submitted that since the wife of the petitioner initiated legal action against the atrocities of the respondent police, they have implicated the petitioner in four cases. The learned counsel pointed out that on 6.6.2008 a vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-03-U-8713 was intercepted at Andhra Pradesh by Sub Inspector of Police, V. Kotta Police Station and they have found that the vehicle belonged to one Senthil Kumar and the PDS rice belonged to one Babu alias Ashok Kumar and they have seized the vehicle along with the contraband and arrested the driver and the cleaner viz,, Murugesh and Suresh. The learned counsel pointed out that on the next day, the same has been flashed in Telugu dailies of Enadu, Satchi and Andhra Jothi. 12. The learned counsel pointed out that the version of the FIR in Cr.No.948 of 2008 itself is false and the petitioner has nothing to do with the contraband and is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel pointed out that the second FIR was dated 7.6.2008 alleging that the petitioner himself was intercepted and found to be in possession of two small bags of PDS rice and he escaped from the scene of occurrence leaving behind his motor cycle, cell phone and the contraband, whereas on 7.6.2008, around 12.00 p.m, they have trespassed into the petitioner's house and under the guise of search they have taken away the cash, motorcycle and cell which was the subject matter of the complaint dated 7.6.2008 and in WP No.16394 of 2008. The learned counsel submitted that the second FIR is also a foisted one. 13. The learned counsel also submitted that the third FIR came into existence on 9.6.2009, in which, a Special Tashildar of flying squad alleged to have intercepted a speeding vehicle which was abandoned by his driver and a report was given by the Tashildar stating that on enquiry, it was found that the contraband belongs to the petitioner and the source of such information was not disclosed. Therefore, the learned counsel pointed out that a report given by the Tashildar is on assumption and presumption and the third FIR is a sequel to the complaint given by the wife of the petitioner. 14. Therefore, the learned counsel pointed out that a report given by the Tashildar is on assumption and presumption and the third FIR is a sequel to the complaint given by the wife of the petitioner. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the fourth FIR came to existence on 24.7.2009 wherein a Tata Sumo has been intercepted and it is alleged that the driver of the vehicle stated that the vehicle as well as the contraband belong to the petitioner and this FIR also is sequel to the complaint of the wife of the petitioner and only to wreck vengeance, a false case has been foisted. 15. The learned counsel pointed out that in all these complaints there is no material to show the involvement of the petitioners and all the complaints are false on the face of the record and they are liable to be quashed. 16. On the contrary, Mr. Rajkumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender of black marketing and illegally transporting PDS rice from Tamil Nadu to Andhra and there are ample evidence to show that he is the owner of the contraband and two of the vehicles involved in the transport. 17. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 18. There are four FIRs registered against the petitioner. The first two FIRs are of the year 2008 which are dated 6.6.2008 and 7.6.2008 respectively. The letter dated 6.6.2008 by the Sub Inspector of Police, V Kotta Police Station, which is available in the type set, would show that they have intercepted vehicle bearing AP-03-U-8713 proceeding from Pernampet of Tamil Nadu Side to Andhra and on interrogation of the driver and cleaner, it was found that they were transporting 108 bags of PDS rice from Gudiyatham of Tamil Nadu to Bangarupet of Karnataka as per the instructions of the vehicle owner viz., Babu alias Ashok Kumar, who is the elder brother of one Senthil Kumar. In the typed set, the publication of news in various Telugu dailies is also found to that effect. The Inspector of Police, CB CID, Vellore Unit had made an endorsement stating "received the lorry, two accused and 108 bags of PDS Rice". 19. In the typed set, the publication of news in various Telugu dailies is also found to that effect. The Inspector of Police, CB CID, Vellore Unit had made an endorsement stating "received the lorry, two accused and 108 bags of PDS Rice". 19. However, Cr.No. 948 of 2008 would read as if the respondent had intercepted the vehicle at Pathrapalli check post and interrogated the driver who confessed that the vehicle belonged to one Senthil and they were engaged by the petitioner to transport the contraband. On the face of the record, it is a false case. 20. The second FIR would proceed to state that the food cell party went in search of the petitioner at Kamraj Nagar, Pernampet and the petitioner was found proceeding in his motorcycle with two small bags (sippam) of PDS Rice. It is further stated that on seeing the police party he left the vehicle, his cell phone and the contraband and fled the scene of occurrence. 21. The wife of the petitioner had given a complaint on 7.6.2008 alleging that the police party trespassed into her house and taken away cash, cell phone and motorcycle. Immediately, a writ petition was also filed for the appropriate relief. Therefore, registration of the second FIR is clouded by suspicion. 22. The third FIR is proceeded on the basis of the report of the Special Tahsildar. Even according to the report, the driver of the lorry had abandoned the lorry and escaped and it is stated that on enquiry, it is found that the contraband belongs to the petitioner. From whom they have collected such information is not stated. So the FIR is registered against the petitioner only on assumption. 23. The fourth FIR is based on the statement given by the driver of Tata Sumo Vehicle. This was registered on 24.7.2009, within two months of the registration of earlier FIR. Except the alleged statement by the driver of the vehicle, there is nothing to connect the petitioner to the alleged offence. 24. In the celebrated case of State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Apex Court has clearly laid down the guidelines, where the inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Court could be exercised. "102. 24. In the celebrated case of State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Apex Court has clearly laid down the guidelines, where the inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Court could be exercised. "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 any 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 an 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. (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. (7) 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. 25. In my considered view, the illustration in paragraph-7 applies to the present case. When the very first FIR in Cr.No.948 of 2008 is false, the subsequent implication of the petitioner is attended with malafides. Moreover, as stated earlier, the first FIR is false and the second FIR is clouded by suspicion and the third FIR is on presumption and the fourth FIR is based on the statement of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to interfere as the entire proceedings is abuse of process of law. 26. In the result, all the criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings in Cr.Nos.341 of 2009, 949 of 2008, 948 of 2008 and 256 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent police are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Mps are closed.