ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as A15 in PRC. No. 26/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Mayiladuthurai, to quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner/A15 is concerned. 2. The proceedings in PRC. No. 26/2003 arises out of the FIR dated 7.8.2002 lodged by one S.Mahadevan, who is none else than the son of the petitioner herein through his first wife, against the petitioner and few others regarding the occurrence allegedly taken place at 7.30 pm on 7.8.2002, in the presence of the defacto complainant and his brother in Timber Depot in Srinivasa Perusal Thottam. The complaint proceeds as if one Tata Sumo bearing Regn. No. TN 63 Y 3675 came and stopped in front of Timber depot and the accused 1 to 4 armed with deadly weapons, got down from the same and they threatened the defacto complainant and his brother to leave the shop and go away and thereafter, they started attacking the defacto complainant and his brother and also damaged the articles, such as telephone, mirror and other articles lying on the table to the value of Rs. 2000/- and they removed Rs. 1,500/- from the cash box and thereafter, they forcibly abducted the defacto complainant and his brother in the same Tata Sumo towards Needoor and they were got down from the vehicle on the way and what is further stated in the complaint is that the occurrence took place only at the instigation of his father, who is inimical towards them. The complaint was registered and investigated into and the final report was filed by the Investigating Officer for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 342, 307, 392,352 r/w 397, 506(ii), 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act insofar as A1 is concerned and under Sections 148, 452, 342, 307, 506(ii), 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act insofar as A2 is concerned, under sections 147, 452, 342 and 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act insofar as A3 to A14 are concerned and under Sections 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act r/w 109 IPC insofar as A15/father is concerned, who is the petitioner herein. 3. 3. The petitioner/A15/father has filed this petition to quash the proceedings, by saying that the materials available do not prima facie sustain the charges under Sections 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act r/w 109 IPC against him and the present complaint is counter blast to the earlier complaint filed by the father against his son in the year 2000 onwards and the allegations raised against the petitioner do not attract the ingredients for the offences as referred to above. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the State. 5. Before going into the merits of the case, it is noteworthy to mention that the petitioner has already filed Crl.O.P. No. 8003/2004 before this Court for the same relief to quash the proceedings and the same was dismissed by order dated 23.11.2007, but on merits, inspite of non-representation on behalf of the petitioner through his learned counsel on record. Though the petitioner filed an application to set aside the order, within few days from 23.11.2007, the same was returned by the Registry questioning the maintainability. Thereafter, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the following judgments (i) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala etc. Though the petitioner filed an application to set aside the order, within few days from 23.11.2007, the same was returned by the Registry questioning the maintainability. Thereafter, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the following judgments (i) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala etc. AIR 1979 SC 87 : (1979) 2 SCC 305 : LNIND 1978 SC 280 : (1979) 1 MLJ(Cri) 644; (ii) Rakesh and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 12 SCC 513 : LNIND 2011 SC 927; (iii) Mohammed Sukur Ali v. State of Assam AIR 2011 SC 1222 : (2011) 4 SCC 729 : LNIND 2011 SC 228 and (iv) Kishanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Customs AIR 1967 Calcutta 80 (V 54C 21)(1) Division Bench of Calcutta High Court for the legal proposition that in a criminal case, if the counsel for the accused does not appear negligently or deliberately, the court should not decide the criminal case against the accused in the absence of his counsel, since an accused in a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and in such a situation, the Court should, in the interest of justice, appoint an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court or if the court so considers proper and appropriate to refer the matter to the Legal Aid Committee, which may appoint an advocate to represent the accused. 7. It is held in Mohammed Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (supra) that such principle is laid down because liberty of a person is the most important feature of our Constitution and Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty as the most important fundamental right and hence, if a criminal case is decided against the accused in the absence of a counsel, there will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also gone to the extent of saying that even if the defence counsel could not show sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the earlier date, then he will be precluded from appearing and arguing the case on behalf of the accused and Another counsel practising on the criminal side should be appointed as Amicus Curiae. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also gone to the extent of saying that even if the defence counsel could not show sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the earlier date, then he will be precluded from appearing and arguing the case on behalf of the accused and Another counsel practising on the criminal side should be appointed as Amicus Curiae. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases cited above was pleased to set aside the order passed against the accused for non-appearance of his counsel. 8. Applying the same view to the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to entertain the present petition, which is second one of the same nature. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh and Others AIR 1975 SC 1002 : (1975) 3 SCC 706 : LNIND 1974 SC 306 laid down the principle that the rejection of prior application for quashing is no bar for quashing the proceedings at the later stage and the same will not amount to revision or review of the High Court’s earlier order. 9. On merits, it is not in dispute that the father on one hand and the sons on other have, on account of the property dispute, filed civil and criminal proceedings and the same are pending against each other. The children through first wife have also filed civil suit against their father for partition and for permanent injunction in OS. No. 51/2002. Pending suit, the present occurrence is allegedly taken place. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint, FIR and statement of witnesses obtained under Section 162 Cr.P.C and the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, except stating that A1 to A14 committed the offence only at the instigation of A15/father, would not attribute any specific overt act against the father and the nature of the role played by the father and the manner of act of instigation by the father. It is not the case of the prosecution that A15/father was present along with other accused in the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence. It is not the case of the prosecution that A15/father was present along with other accused in the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The allegation that the father instigated other accused to commit the acts alleged, is bald and vague and does not inspire this court to say that the ingredients for the charges framed against the father, are prima facie attracted. In that event, if the proceedings initiated against A15/father being allowed to continue, the same amounts to abuse of process of law and it is the fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings made against the petitioner/A15 is liable to be quashed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in PRC. No. 26/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mayiladuthurai stands quashed insofar as the petitioner/A15 alone is concerned. The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mayiladuthurai is directed to dispose of the case in PRC No. 26/2003 in respect of other accused in accordance with law and without being influenced any of the observations made in this order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Petition allowed.