ORDER : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C. No. 453 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. 2. The case of the petitioner/A5 is that he is running a Printing Press and printed Pamphlets given by A1 to A4, who were not arrayed as parties before this Court. On 14.08.2007, a murder was occurred in Tenkasi Town and expressing their solidarity, A1 to A4 printed the Pamphlets in the petitioner's Printing Press. Aggrieved by the Pamphlets, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner as well as other accused persons under Section 153(A) I.P.C. and Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act read with Section 109 I.P.C. 3. It is useful to extract below the details mentioned in the Pamphlet. 4. It is also relevant to extract below the charge-sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. 5. On perusal of the pamphlet as well as the charge-sheet, there is no commission of offence against the national security or against the tranquillity to the law and order. However, if at all there is any allegation, the Law Enforcing Agency has made allegations only against A1 to A4. When there is no specific allegation against the petitioner/A5 either in the charge-sheet or any other materials to show that the petitioner/A5 colluded with other accused persons to create law and order problem and acted against the national security in the particular area, the basic requirement to satisfy Section 153(A) I.P.C. and Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act read with Section 109 I.P.C. does not arise. 6. In this context, it is relevant to extract below Section 153(A) I.P.C. Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 109 I.P.C. “Section 153(A) IPC 153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony: (1) Whoever: (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility. (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity, for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (2) Offence committed in place of worship, etc. - Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 7. Molesting a person to prejudice of employment or business:- (1) Whoever: (a) with intent to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such person or any member of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof. Section 109 IPC 109. Section 109 IPC 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment - Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” 7. On perusal of the above provisions, implicating the petitioner in the said offence does not arise merely because the petitioner and other accused persons printed the pamphlets showing that the deceased persons have not died, but they have been planted in their hearts; to save their nation, they will grow into a tree in their hearts and they have saluted the deceased persons for their death for the cause of Hindu religion and prestige of the Hindus. 8. On perusal of the above pamphlet, this Court does not find any threat to the nation and they have not acted against the national security or tranquillity to the law and order. 9. For quashing the criminal complaint, the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 , wherein it has been held as follows: “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692 , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 1995 (6) SCC 194 , Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 591 , State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, 1996 (8) SCC 164 , Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 (3) SCC 259 , Medical Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. 2000 (3) SCC 269 , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, 2000 (4) SCC 168 , M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Kumar, 2001 (8) SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, 2005 (1) SCC 122 . Sharaful Haque, 2005 (1) SCC 122 . The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala-fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong. (b) purely a criminal offence. (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 10. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 10. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (cited supra), I have no hesitation to quash charge sheet, since the charge-sheet did not make any specific allegation or implicating the penal provisions against the petitioner and when there is no specific allegation with regard to commission of offence against the petitioner/A5, this Court has no other option except to quash C.C. No. 453 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, in respect of the petitioner/A5 alone. Accordingly, C.C. No. 453 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, is quashed in respect of the petitioner/A5 alone and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.