Judgment :- 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 10 of 2006 on the file of the first respondent police. 2. The complaint of the second respondent upon which a case stands registered in Crime No. 10 of 2006 on the file of the first respondent for offence under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., reads as follows: G3/11253/1248/05-06 District Police Office, Madurai District, 9/DSP-DCB.M.D/06 Before the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. Petition submitted by the Petitioner C. Venkatasubbu, (Aged about 69 years) S/o. Mr. K. Chinnaswamy Naidu, 15-B, Ayyanar Koil Street, Anippanady, Madurai 625 009 within the limits of B-3 Teppakulam Police Station, Madurai) Quarry at Keelavalavu Village, Melur Taluk, (S.No. 297/5) Madurai District. Petitioner/Complainant. The petitioner is the law abiding Senior Citizen and residing with his family in the above said address, retired as Tahsildar at Madurai during 1995. After retirement he became as power of attorney of one Mr. K.M. Solairajan and looking after granite business. 2. The first respondent/accused was working as a judicial Magistrate/District Munsif and dismissed from Subordinate Judicial service under G.O.Ms.No. 1562 dated “18.10.1995 of Home/Courts I.A) Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu on the finding of being guilty of corrupting by Full Court of the Honourable High Court of judicature at Madras. The third respondent/accused Tmt. S. Selvarani is the wife of first respondent/accused. The fourth respondent/accused P. Raja and the fifth respondent/accused K. Sampandam are the close friends, stooge and henchmen of the first respondent/accused R. Sankarappan. 3. During 1992-1993 the petitioner was working as Tahsildar at Uthamapalayam and at that time, the first respondent/accused was working as Judicial Magistrate in the same place i.e., Uthamapalayam. Further, the official residential quarters of the petitioner as well as the first respondent/accused were adjacent to one another and therefore the petitioner came to know the first respondent/accused. Further, the petitioner had acquaintance with the first respondent/accused in the Official capacity also under legal Aid Camps. 4. The petitioner submit that the above said Mr. Further, the official residential quarters of the petitioner as well as the first respondent/accused were adjacent to one another and therefore the petitioner came to know the first respondent/accused. Further, the petitioner had acquaintance with the first respondent/accused in the Official capacity also under legal Aid Camps. 4. The petitioner submit that the above said Mr. K.N. Solairajan approached the petitioner to conduct the writ petition matters before the Honourable High Court of Judicature of Madras and Supreme Court, New Delhi and proceedings before the Government of Tamil Nadu for grant of granite quarry lease in Survey No. 297/5 of Keelavalavu Village and Survey No. 167/1 and 94/2 of Thiruchunai Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District by appointing the petitioner as his general power of attorney. In the legal proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Madras Mr. N.R. Chandran was engaged as counsel during the year 1989 and M/s. K. Alagirisamy and R. Kannan were the counsels of K.N. Solairajan from the year 1990 onwards. After the disposal of the writ petitions and writ appeal on 12.11.1999, the first respondent/accused Mr. R. Sankarappan voluntarily offered his professional service as a lawyer to the petitioner and the first respondent accused engaged Mr. R. Iyyamperumal as the counsel on record along with the first respondent/accused on before of the petitioner representing Mr. K.N. Solairajan in the Honourable Supreme Court of India, New Delhi in SLP No. 3396/2000 filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner engaged Mr. P. Chidambaram as Senior Counsel. Since the first respondent/accused was the counsel on record assisting in the Supreme Court, the petitioner had paid to the first respondent/accused huge amounts as his fees as demanded by him, then and there. The Honourable Supreme Court, New Delhi remanded the matter to the Government of Tamil Nadu for fresh enquiry to consider the application of Mr. K.N. Solairajan, the Principal of the petitioner for fresh disposal by the Expert Committee. When Committee was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent/accused accompanied the petitioner and appeared before the Expert Committee, as counsel for the petitioner representing Mr. K.N. Solairajan. Therefore in his professional capacity, the first respondent/accused was entrusted by the petitioner with all records and all the copies of the Court proceedings. 5. The second respondent/accused V. Govindan was working as Assistant Director Mines, Collectorate, Madurai, during the period 15.07.2000. K.N. Solairajan. Therefore in his professional capacity, the first respondent/accused was entrusted by the petitioner with all records and all the copies of the Court proceedings. 5. The second respondent/accused V. Govindan was working as Assistant Director Mines, Collectorate, Madurai, during the period 15.07.2000. He was against with the above said lease proceedings and submitting controversial statement to the Government. At last, when the Honourable High Court passed order of mandamus directing the Government to grant the full extent applied for, the second respondent/accused began to encroach upon the quarry site and carry out illicit mining with the assistants of his benami quarry operator. This fact was brought to the notice of the Government by a telegram dated 07.01.2000 requesting the Government to take action against the second respondent/accused, failing which contempt proceedings will be initiated. These facts would be evidenced by the report of special team constituted by the Head Office of the DGM to report about the very large scale of illicit mining with the active involvement of second respondent/accused for his personal gains, so as to prevent the petitioner from entering quarry the site, after the grant of lease. Taking into consideration of the serious consequences, the second respondent/accused approached and requested the petitioner not to persuade the telegram since it would affect his promotion as well as proposed “Voluntary retirement Service” Considering the situation the petitioner did not proceed further. 6. After the order of grant of lease by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.No.3D 11 Industries MMD-1 Department dated 12.04.2003 the first respondent/accused felt piqued by the petitioner turning down marriage proposal of the first respondent/accused a daughter Miss. S. Ramya with the petitioner/s son Mr. C.V. Murali. Having fully known the facts that the illicit mining carried out under the instruction of the second respondent/accused during the first and second respondent/accused began to demand the entire portion of the quarry in S.No. 297/5 of Keelavalavu Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District be given for sub-lease to them, which is against Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral concession Rules, 1959. The petitioner expressing his commitment in the quarry already promised to give raising contracts to others, refused their request and obligations. The petitioner expressing his commitment in the quarry already promised to give raising contracts to others, refused their request and obligations. Aggrieved by the refusal on both grounds, the first and second respondent/accused sent feelers to persuade the petitioner to change his negative attitude, with veiled suggestions of unpleasantness and demanded to pay heavy amount failing which both of them would not allow the petitioner to carry out the quarry operation and they will see that the lease is cancelled at any cost. 7. After the grant of granite quarry by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the District Collector, Madurai executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner as Power Agent of K.N. Solairajan, belatedly, on 29.12.2003, only in pursuance of the order of the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 20.12.2003 in W.P.No. 37303 of 2003. Since, the petitioner has not acceded to the demands made by the first and second respondents/accused, they caught hold K.N. Solairajan, the Principal of the petitioner, under their fold and made him to sign in the allegation petition prepared by them against the petitioner. Having felt ulterior motivation of the first and second respondent/accused K.N. Solairajan, compromised the case with the petitioner which was decreed in O.S.No. 1 of 2004 of the Court of the I Additional District Court, Madurai. Frustrated by this compromise, they started giving troubles to the petitioner by sending notices with frivolous, vexatious and untenable allegations through the third, fourth and the fifth respondents/accused respectively on 11.10.2004 and 03.12.2004. The third, fourth and the fifth respondents/accused were not at all connected with the petitioner in any of the matters much less the lease of granite quarry granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the petitioner through his counsel had sent suitable reply notices to the said notices on 31.10.2004 and 24.12.2004 respectively. Taking advantage of the copies of all the proceedings in the granite quarry belonging to the petitioner the first and second respondents/accused untenable, unbelievable and false allegations to the Government of Tamil Nadu to stop the permit and cancel the lease of granite quarry granted in favour of K.N. Solairajan, represented by the petitioner as power agent. Taking advantage of the copies of all the proceedings in the granite quarry belonging to the petitioner the first and second respondents/accused untenable, unbelievable and false allegations to the Government of Tamil Nadu to stop the permit and cancel the lease of granite quarry granted in favour of K.N. Solairajan, represented by the petitioner as power agent. Failing in his attempt of foul lay behind the screen, the first respondent/accused entered directly by filing affidavits in W.P.Nos.34055 of 2004 and 3215 of 2005 and filing complaint petitions before the Vigilance Commissioner on 07.10.2004 and the Chief Secretary on 06.01.2005. The first and second respondents/accused filed another W.P.No. 848 of 2005 in the name of one K. Sambandham, fifth respondent/accused, who is not at all known to the petitioner and he is not at all concerned with any of the lease proceedings. The W.A.No. 344 of 2005 and S.L.P.No. 14040 of 2005 filed in the name of Sambandham were dismissed. The above attitude of the first and second respondents/accused would go to show the malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. 8. Failed in all these attempts, several allegation petitions have been filed before the Government and the District Collector, Madurai and filed several W.Ps. and Crl.O.Ps. in the Honourable High Court in the name of first and third respondent/accused. They have also filed contempt application against the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Industries Department. The involvement of the second respondent/accused can be revealed from the contents of the above allegations. They are trying to prevent the petitioner from carrying out quarry operation by threatening and harassing the Government Officials through allegation petitions. The Government, based on the report of the District Collector, Madurai, has filed counter affidavit before the Honourable High Court, that the allegation leveled against the petitioner are all false and require no further action. A detailed statement of the numerous petition filed before the Industry Secretary, Director of Vigilance, District Collector and W.Ps. and Crl.O.Ps. filed before the Honourable High Court are annexed for ready filed before the Honourable High Court are annexed for ready reference. 9. A detailed statement of the numerous petition filed before the Industry Secretary, Director of Vigilance, District Collector and W.Ps. and Crl.O.Ps. filed before the Honourable High Court are annexed for ready filed before the Honourable High Court are annexed for ready reference. 9. The first accused acting against the petitioner with the help of second, third, fourth and fifth respondents/accused, betrayed the confidence of the petitioner (as his client) for whom the first respondent/accused, had appeared in the Court proceedings and before the proceedings of the Government of Tamil Nadu, amount serious offence of professional misconduct and blackmailing actuaries for securing wrongful gain, by seeking to obtain benefit of the property involved (granite area) in the cases handled by the first respondent/accused on behalf of the petitioner in the name of his Principal, K.N. Solairajan. Therefore, it is prayed that his benign Superintendent of Police may be pleased to send a petition to D.C.B. to register the case and investigate the same according to law and thus render justice, Madurai, 01.04.2006 sd. ….. Petitioner. N.Dis.G3/11253/1248/05-06 Forwarded to the Dy.Supdt. of Police/DCB/MD for necessary action sd…. For Supdt. of Police, Madurai District, 9/DSP-DCB-MD/06 Inspr. DCB to register a case and investigate, sd. Tr. Ramasamy, DSP DCRB/MD, Sir, received the petition and Registered a case in DCB/MD Cr.No. 10/06 u/s. 406, 420 I.P.C. on 15.05.2006 at 17.45. hrs. Sd. Tmt. Prasanna Gunasundari SI/DCB/MD dated 15/5/06. 3. Though it is a rare case, this Court would exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the registration of the case, a bare reading of the complaint informs no offence whatsoever under the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent takes great pains to inform that the documents entrusted to the petitioner in his capacity as counsel were misused. Further, signature of the second respondent’s wife were obtained in blank papers and put to misuse and such papers have been forwarded to the Investigating agency. 5. We are not impressed. Where there is no foundation, there cannot be an edifice. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 10 of 2006 on the file of the first respondent police, shall stand quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.