COMMON ORDER In these three criminal petitions, one N. Venkata Rami Reddy, Superintendent, in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, is the petitioner-accused. Three First Information Reports were filed against him in three cases and he was charge-sheeted for various offences of trivial nature by the police. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State, for effective adjudication, all the criminal petitions are disposed of by the following common order. Criminal Petition No. 2200 of 2013 2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in CC No.187 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam. 3. Basing on the report lodged by the Attender in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam by name K. Vanita, the Station House Officer, Kuppam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.115 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 457, 380 read with 511 I.P.C. The allegation is that Smt. K. Vanitha, Attender at the residence of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, went to the residence of Junior Civil Judge, who was on leave and found that the front gate of the house was locked, she opened the gate, entered into the compound and then noticed that the lock fixed to the main door was broken and, that the door was found bolted from inside. Thereafter, she entered into the house through backyard, verified the articles and found that no articles were missing and subsequently she learnt that some unknown miscreants entered into the house. She gave information to the police over phone, the police visited the premises on 9.7.2011, recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 4, registered a case against unknown persons on 11.7.2011, investigated into the case and filed charge-sheet naming the petitioner as accused in this case. During the course of investigation i.e., on 9.9.2011, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner-accused, produced him before the learned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody and later on released on bail. LW2 Mr. B. Muneendra was the Process Server in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam. During the course of investigation i.e., on 9.9.2011, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner-accused, produced him before the learned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody and later on released on bail. LW2 Mr. B. Muneendra was the Process Server in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam. The police examined him and recorded his statement, which shows that on 9.7.2011 when LW2 Muneendra went to the residence of the Junior Civil Judge at 6.50 p.m., he saw the accused climbing the compound wall and entering into the house, as the person was no other than the Superintendent of the Court he kept quite and five minutes thereafter he left the house by climbing the rear wall of the compound. Subsequently, on the next day at 7.00 p.m., he was informed by Vanitha, Attender, about some miscreants entering into the house and breaking open the lock fixed to the main door. LW3 S. Bhagya Raj is the Home Guard working in Junior Civil Judge Court, Kuppam and his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is to the effect that he also saw the petitioner-accused climbing the compound wall of the residence of the Magistrate and entering into the compound. The statement of this witness is nothing but replica of the statement of LW2. LW4 is the another Home Guard and his statement is also the verbatim reproduction of the statements of LWs.2 and 3. 4. In the State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC Crl. 426, the Supreme Court pointed out that "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, the proceedings are liable to be quashed." 5. Similarly in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Md. Sharaful Haque, 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 278 (SC) = (2005) 1 SCC 122 , the Supreme Court held as follows : "It would be an abuse of process of Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. Similarly in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Md. Sharaful Haque, 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 278 (SC) = (2005) 1 SCC 122 , the Supreme Court held as follows : "It would be an abuse of process of Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 6. Further in Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and another, (2010) 10 SCC 673 , the Supreme Court held as follows : "We reiterate that when the criminal Court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with open mind. True it is that is not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against justice. The High Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interests of justice. Therefore, it would have been a proper case for the High Court to look into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to pass any order in the interest of justice. In our opinion, this was a case where the High Court ought to have used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C." 7. We have to examine the facts of the present case in the light of the aforementioned guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case the petitioner is the Superintendent of Junior Civil Judge Court at Kuppam. The entire staff of the said Court is under his administrative control. We have to examine the facts of the present case in the light of the aforementioned guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case the petitioner is the Superintendent of Junior Civil Judge Court at Kuppam. The entire staff of the said Court is under his administrative control. It is most unlikely that he climbed the compound wall and entered into the premises and it was witnessed by LW2. If really LW2 and the Home Guards witnessed the same they would have immediately informed the same to the police and a case would have been registered against him without any delay. Further, according to the informant (LW1), no articles were stolen in the residence of the Junior Civil Judge, and that she saw only the lock of the main door was broken and the front door was bolted from inside. Therefore, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are considered to be true, it does not make out any criminal offence. It seems to me that an incident was invented to involve the petitioner, who is the Superintendent of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam. The police unfortunately, even though the allegations mentioned in the First Information Report and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. do not disclose any offence, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner. The entire episode as it would appear to me is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The charge-sheet filed against the petitioner-appellant is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Criminal Petition No.2384 of 2013 : 8. In this case, the petitioner was made an accused on the basis of report lodged by him on the instructions of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam. In this case, the petitioner-accused informed the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam that on 4.7.2011 at about 1.00 p.m., he noticed cut sandalwood tree by the side of the Junior Civil Judge Court building and some portion of the tree was taken away by some unknown persons, thereafter on the instructions of the Magistrate, the petitioner-accused prepared a report and presented to the Station House Officer, Kuppam Police Station narrating the same facts and mentioning therein that the incident might have happened during the night of 3.7.2011. Basing on the said report, the police registered a case in Crime No.114 of 2011 of Kuppam Police Station under Section 380 of I.P.C. Curiously, the police after conducting investigation made the petitioner, who is the informant, as an accused in this case and ultimately he was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 381 and 177 I.P.C. on the allegation that he himself had cut the tree and carried away the portion of the tree. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that on 9.9.2011 at 8.00 a.m., the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner at Thatimakulapalyam, Punganur Mandal in the presence of mediators and recorded his confessional statement. According to the charge-sheet, the petitioner allegedly confessed before the Investigating Officer that he had cut and committed theft of sandalwood tree in this case and the stolen property, i.e., piece of sandalwood tree, was thrown out by him near the railway station, Kuppam, with a view to sell away the same. Subsequently, the stolen property was said to be recovered in the presence of mediators near the railway station at the instance of the accused. 9. In this case, the police examined one P. Rajendra Prasad, Process Server as LW2, Mr. S. Bhagyaraj, Home Guard as LW3 and Mr. Adinarayana, Home Guard as LW4 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. LWs.2 and 3 allegedly stated that on the night of 3/4.4.2011 at about 1.30 hours in the premises of Junior Civil Judge's Court building they have heard some noise of cutting a tree, on hearing the noise all the three went to the spot and found the Superintendent i.e., the petitioner herein, directing his men to cut the sandalwood tree. In this context it requires to be noticed that all the aforesaid witnesses informed the Presiding Officer about the said incident on 5.7.2011. In this case all the witnesses are no other than the employees of the Court. 10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Junior Civil Judge developed some grouse against the petitioner, who is the Superintendent of the Court, to take vengeance against him he got implicated the petitioner in the present case. In this case all the witnesses are no other than the employees of the Court. 10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Junior Civil Judge developed some grouse against the petitioner, who is the Superintendent of the Court, to take vengeance against him he got implicated the petitioner in the present case. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also would submit that the petitioner gave a report to the Presiding Officer of the Court, on that the Presiding Officer issued memos to LWs.1 to 3 calling for their explanation for their negligence in discharging their duties on the date of occurrence. In reply to the said memo dated 4.7.2011, LWs.1 to 3, the employees of the Court, submitted their explanation to the Presiding Officer stating, inter alia, that they attended the duty at 8.00 p.m. and they have not seen any incident occurred within the Court premises on the intervening night of 3/ 4.7.2011. Thus, the above said explanation, according to the learned Counsel, runs contra to the allegation levelled in the charge-sheet. 11. In any event, the very allegation that the Superintendent of the Court brought some people and got the sandalwood tree cut, which was witnessed by LWs.2 to 4, is quite unbelievable. The incident in the earlier case allegedly took place on 9.7.2011, and in the present case allegedly took place on 3.7.2011. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot adopt mechanical or casual approach. It is under the duty to scrutinize the allegations levelled in the complaint/charge-sheet with care and caution. Therefore, when the allegations are so scrutinized it would obviously appear that the allegations are inherently improbable and it is not understandable as to why immediately LWs.1 to 3 did not inform the Junior Civil Judge that they actually saw the petitioner getting the sandalwood tree cut through his men. Therefore, this case also is liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Criminal Petition No.3047 of 2012 : 12. This is also a similar one to the earlier cases. In this case along with petitioner another accused by name Alagesh was added as accused No.1. The petitioner is accused No.2 in this case. Therefore, this case also is liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Criminal Petition No.3047 of 2012 : 12. This is also a similar one to the earlier cases. In this case along with petitioner another accused by name Alagesh was added as accused No.1. The petitioner is accused No.2 in this case. The facts of the case are that one B. Muneendra, Process Server working in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam while he was attending duty at the residence of Junior Civil Judge on 12.7.2011 at 8.00 p.m., the petitioner-A2 came along with Alagesh-A 1, who is residing by the side of the residence of Junior Civil Judge, with some coolies and on the direction of petitioner-A2, cut the rubber tree situated in the premises of Junior Civil Judge's Court and left the Court premises. B. Muneendra, Process Server informed the Presiding Officer of the Court on 14.11.2011 about the incident and later to the Station House Officer, but the case was registered against the petitioner and another on 19.7.2011 by the police under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C. The worth of the tree in this present case and also in the earlier one was said to be Rs.2,000/-. In this case also the witnesses are the Court employees and their statement is that openly the petitioner directed A1 and the coolies to get the branches of rubber tree cut and took away the branches worth of Rs.2,000/- in a tractor. Most of the witnesses are Process Servers/Attenders and Home Guards working in the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kuppam. Due to inordinate delay in the First Information Report, the incident in this case also obviously appears to be inherently improbable and no reliance can be placed on the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. 13. Proper scrutiny and examination of the facts of all the cases would clearly reveal that for some oblique motive, the petitioner, who is the Superintendent of Court, was involved in the cases. The way in which the investigation proceeded with also indicates that it is biased and if the petitioner-accused is made to face the trial of the cases, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and it would result in miscarriage of justice. The way in which the investigation proceeded with also indicates that it is biased and if the petitioner-accused is made to face the trial of the cases, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and it would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I am thoroughly convinced that all the cases are liable to be quashed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, the entire proceedings in the three cases i.e., CC Nos.186, 187 and 193 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam are hereby quashed and the criminal petitions are allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these criminal petitions shall stand closed.