ORDER 1. The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C. No. 26 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kuzhithurai and the final report is filed against them by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 379 IPC and Sections 4(i)a(ii) I.A. read with 21 of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act , 1957. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-75-A-6541 and the second petitioner is the driver and the first petitioner is the cleaner. The third petitioner is having transport permit in respect of Tamil Nadu. On 21.12.2009, the second petitioner herein had taken the sand from Government Sand Godown, situated at Poosanoor Village, Tuticorin District, in receipt No. 187195. The lorry was loaded with four units of sand. The units of sand, registration number of the lorry, destination and permitted time were clearly mentioned in the permit receipt issued by the authorities. While so, on 21.12.2009 at 6.05 p.m., when the lorry with four units of sand, driven by the second petitioner, was going towards Poosanoor Village, the lorry was stopped in the Revenue Check Post, Kavalkinary, and the lorry and the bill were checked by the Revenue officials and thereafter, at 6.25 p.m. further check was made in the Police Check Post, Aralvaimozhi and the relevant entries were made in the bill. The lorry reached Kappakadu at 9.30 p.m. and unloaded the sand. After unloading the sand, at about 11.00 p.m., the second petitioner, who is the driver of the lorry, went to his house and the first petitioner, who is the cleaner of the lorry, cleaned the lorry and stayed in the lorry. At 11.30 p.m. the Inspector of Police, Puthukkadai Police Station, Thiru. Ramesh Kumar and the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiru. Kumar and the Special Branch Head Constable Thiru. Prabhakaran and two other Police personnel came to Kappukadu and they reloaded the sand, which were already unloaded from the lorry, through the loadmen and then, the Sub Inspector of Police drove the said lorry to the Puthukkadai Police Station and the cleaner, who is the first petitioner herein, was arrested. Kumar and the Special Branch Head Constable Thiru. Prabhakaran and two other Police personnel came to Kappukadu and they reloaded the sand, which were already unloaded from the lorry, through the loadmen and then, the Sub Inspector of Police drove the said lorry to the Puthukkadai Police Station and the cleaner, who is the first petitioner herein, was arrested. A case was registered in Crime No. 402 of 2009 alleging that the Inspector of Police, along with other Police party, during the vehicle check at Munchirai Junction, the lorry of the third petitioner came at Munchirai Junction from Vettuvanni to Thengapattinam Road and when the lorry was intercepted, the driver escaped from the lorry and the cleaner only was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the case was foisted against the petitioners by Thiru. Ramesh Kumar, Inspector of Police. The third petitioner gave a complaint to the Chief Minister Cell, CBCID and the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. The Superintendent of Police, issued receipt to the complaint of the petitioner, dated 19.1.2010 and conducted an enquiry and passed a proceedings by recommending to take disciplinary action under Rule 3(a) against the said Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police, for registering a case against the petitioners by changing the place of occurrence and changing the occurrence itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Nagercoil, also had conducted an enquiry, regarding the allegations made by the petitioners against the Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police and a report, dated 18.3.2010, was submitted by him in Ref.C/3/168/2519/2010 and a copy was also furnished to the third petitioner. The report reveals that the Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police, Puthukkadai Police Station, reloaded the unloaded river sand from Kappukadu Godown to the third petitioner’s lorry and foisted a false case, as if lorry was caught at Munchirai Junction, while attempting to smuggle river sand. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case of clear abuse of process of the Court and the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Nagercoil, have concluded that the case registered against the petitioners is false. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case of clear abuse of process of the Court and the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Nagercoil, have concluded that the case registered against the petitioners is false. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed. 6. Learned Government advocate admitted the fact regarding the enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police and also disciplinary action taken against the Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police. 7. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records. 8. On perusing the report given by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Nagercoil, it is mentioned in the report as follows; “It is true that the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-75-A-6541 has the permit only to run with in Tamil Nadu. It is further true that on 21.12.2009 the above said lorry was only used for bringing sand from Poosanoor of Thoothukudi District. It is substantiated through the entries made at Revenue check post, Kavalkinaru as well as the Police Check post at Aralvaimozhi. It is also true that the sand was brought to the Godown owned by Deva Rajan of Kapukadu, which is a licenced Godown. The allegation that the Inspector, Sub Inspector of Puthukkadai Police Station reloaded the unloaded river sand from Kapukadu Godown to the said lorry and foisted a case, as if it was caught at Munchirai Junction, while attempting to smuggle river sand from Tamil Nadu to Kerala has truth. It is also substantiated through the refused statement of one Selvin Jeya Deesh of Mankattuvilai, who is the observation mahazar witness. The allegation that since the complainant Tr.John Edward Raj refused to give bribe the Inspector, Puthukkadai, this case was foisted against him, could not be substantiated through evidences. It is also true that there is no river sand taken from Thamiraparani river as stated in the FIR. It is also substantiated in the ADSP’s reply.” “It is known that the complainant John Edward Raj already lodged the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. Since it was found that the Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police had changed the place of occurrence in the case this Inspector of Police Tr. Ramesh Kumar and Sub Inspector of Police Tr. Since it was found that the Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police had changed the place of occurrence in the case this Inspector of Police Tr. Ramesh Kumar and Sub Inspector of Police Tr. Kumar have been recommended for departmental action under Rule 3(a) to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range for their unfairly action. Since the erred officials had been recommended for departmental action through the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, no further action is needed.” 9. The concerned Inspector of Police, Mr. Ramesh Kumar has filed an affidavit before this Court. In the said affidavit, in paragraph No. 4 he has stated as follows: “4. I humbly submit that based on the representation given by the 1st petitioner herein a enquiry was made against me and the higher officials came to know that the Inspector of Police, Pudukkadai Police Station did not demanded bribe from the 1st petitioner herein and the Superintendent of Police also came to know that the place of occurrence was wrongly mentioned in the First Information Report. In this regard, a charge was issued under Section 3(a) against me and after enquiry punishment also awarded against me and further I was transferred from the said Police Station.” 10. The enquiry report of the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and also the report of the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., dated 22.5.2010, revealed that the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthukkadai Police Station, foisted a case against the petitioners. Therefore, the final report filed in pursuance of Crime No. 402 of 2009 on the file of the Puthukkadai Police and the proceedings in C.C. No. 26 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kuzhithurai, are quashed. 11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Original petition allowed.