ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. 2. Today, Mr. K. Lazar, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, is present before this Court. 3. On the complaint lodged by Srimathi, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 212/2011 and after completing the investigation, have filed a chargesheet in PRC No. 1/2012 before the Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Nagercoil, against 11 accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 352, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act read with 149 IPC. Challenging which, the accused are before this Court. 4. At the outset, Mr. K. Samidurai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de-facto complainant is none other than the wife of Iyyankkannu, a Police Constable and that the said Iyyankkannu had encroached into the property of Jawahar/A1 in a high handed manner and when that was questioned, a false case has been foisted against Jawahar and all his family members by the respondent police. In support of this contention, Mr. K. Samidurai brought to the notice of this Court the report dated 12.09.2011 sent by Additional Superintendent of Police to the Superintendent of Police, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “3. Now it comes to my notice that the said HC.147 Iyyankannu did not hear my words and again picked up unnecessary quarrel with the petitioner under the guise of taking legal possession of his property. 4. It is true that HC.147 Iyyankannu had already dismantled the compound wall belonging to the petitioner Jawahar by taking law into his own lands. When this matter came to the notice of Rajakkamangalam P.S. Proper and timely action ought to have been taken by registering a case under appropriate sections of law against HC.147 Iyyankannu. Since no case was registered against HC.147 for his unlawful action in dismantling the compound wall and the assaulting of his care taken Nagarajan, it has emboldened the said HC.147 to do further atrocities. 5. As per the report of the Tahsildar, Agusteeswaram HC147 Iyyankannu has encroached the land of Jawahar and forcibly erected a compound wall. In order to justify his action and to threaten the petitioner, on 15.07.2011, Iyyankannu HC.147 has arranged to give a petition through his wife Tmt. 5. As per the report of the Tahsildar, Agusteeswaram HC147 Iyyankannu has encroached the land of Jawahar and forcibly erected a compound wall. In order to justify his action and to threaten the petitioner, on 15.07.2011, Iyyankannu HC.147 has arranged to give a petition through his wife Tmt. Srimathy and succeeded in registering a case in Rajakkamangalam P.S. Cr.No.212/2011, u/s 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b), 354, 506(i) IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act 1992 by misusing his official position in the capacity of S.B. Head Constable. 6. It is found that the present Inspr. Of Police Tr. Sridhar of Rajakkamangalam Circle has failed to peruse the revenue documents and he simply believed the exaggerated complaint petition of the wife of HC.147 Iyyankannu and gone to the extent of arresting nine counter petitioners among the 11 and putting them behind the bars and thereby misused his power. The one sided action of the Inspr. of Police Tr. Sridhar is not applicable. The Inspr. of Police did not probe into the matter and simply danced to the turns of the SB.HC.147 Iyyankannu. Such nefarious activities cannot be encouraged in the police department. 7. I am of the opinion that, HC.147 Iyyankannu may please be transferred out from Special Branch and posted to non sensitive local police station to control his use of influence. The Inspr. of Police Tr. Sridhar may be dealt with for taking hasty action on the complaint of Tmt. Srimathy wife of HC.147 Iyyankannu without verifying the past events and scrutinizing the revenue records and for having remained as a silent spectator.? In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution would a malafide exercise of power.” 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that the Additional Superintendent of Police has given a further report dated 17.10.2011, wherein it is stated as follows:- “(iii) The petitioner Jawahar also had taken the law into his own hands and he also dismantled the compound wall newly erected by the HC 147 Ayyankannu with the assistance of his men. The action of the petitioner is legally not acceptable. Again the petitioner has sent a post card on 18.10.10 to the HC.147 Ayyankannu with threatening words. It is too much on the part of the petitioner.” 6. The action of the petitioner is legally not acceptable. Again the petitioner has sent a post card on 18.10.10 to the HC.147 Ayyankannu with threatening words. It is too much on the part of the petitioner.” 6. In view of such conflicting reports, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact in a quash application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, this petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Nagercoil and Judicial Magistrate No. I, Nagercoil, is directed to complete the committal proceedings in PRC No.1 of 2012 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that non bailable warrant is pending against A2 and A3 before the Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Nagercoil. They are directed to surrender before the concerned Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, their warrant shall be recalled and committal proceedings be proceeded with. 9. After the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and charges are framed against the accused persons, the presence of A2 and A3 is dispensed with before the Sessions Court, taking into consideration their age and they shall undertake that they will not dispute their identity and that their counsel will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in their absence. If they adopt any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist upon their presence. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.