JUDGMENT : Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the record in FIR No.655 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station, New Washermenpet, Chennai - 600 081 and quash the same. 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.655 of 2016, on the file of the 1st respondent Police. 2. The gist of the case is that on 27.06.2016, at about 10.00 a.m., when the 2nd respondent was proceeding to his work near old Metal Cox Company, a person aged about 50 years along with four persons restrained him and demanded money. The 2nd respondent replied that he had no money and attempted to run away. At that time, the person, aged about 50 years took a knife from his hip and placed it on the petitioner’s throat and warned him not to make any noise. Thereafter, the other persons took Rs.1,500/- from the 2nd respondent’s pocket and threatened him not to lodge any complaint. Sensing fear, the 2nd respondent escaped from the accused and lodged a complaint to the 1st respondent Police and a case in Crime No.655 of 2016, for offence under Sections 392, 397 and 506(ii) was registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to somehow detain the petitioner and other accused under Goondas Act, the above false case has been registered against them. In this case, if the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in such a way, none of the accused name is mentioned in the FIR. In the first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the 2nd respondent did not mention the name of the accused. On the same day, again the statement of the 2nd respondent is said to have been recorded, wherein the petitioner’s name as well as the other accused name (Pradeep Raj/A1, Yuvaraj/A2, Kumar @ Kappal Kumar/A3, the petitioner/A4 and Jeeva/A5) were mentioned. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness to the 1st respondent Police and he is used to according their convenience. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness to the 1st respondent Police and he is used to according their convenience. To prove the fact that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of judgment of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.2374 of 2017, dated 12.10.2021, wherein the learned Magistrate confirmed that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness to the 1st respondent Police. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner had some previous cases, in all the cases, he got acquitted. This is the only case which has been pending from the year 2016. Now, the 2nd respondent realized his mistake and compromised the issue and he is ready to withdraw the complaint lodged against the petitioner and other accused and filed the compromise affidavit to that effect. Hence, he prayed for quashing of FIR against the petitioner. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police filed status report and submitted that based on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.655 of 2016 came to be registered. On registration of FIR, the 1st respondent Police took up the investigation, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused on the same day at about 12.45 p.m., in front of Suriya Hospital, TH-Road, recorded their confession, seized Rs.400/- from A1 and knife from A2 under the cover of seizure mahazar. In this case, there are totally four accused, A1 is Pradeep Raj, A2 is Yuvaraj, A3 Kumar @ Kappal Kumar, A4 is the petitioner and A5 Jeeva. He further submitted that the accused/A1 to A4 were granted bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The petitioner/A4 is a habitual offender, who has involved in the following cases:- S.No. Crime Number and Police Station Offence under Sections Stage 1. Crime No.384/12, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC Acquittal 2. Crime No.1805/2016, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.109 Cr.P.C Disposed 3. Crime No.1058/2021, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.107 Cr.P.C Disposed 4. Crime No.353/2018, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.75 of TNCP Act Disposed 5. Crime No.258/2018, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.41(2) Cr.P.C Disposed 6. The investigation in this case would be completed and charge sheet would be filed soon. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 7. Crime No.1058/2021, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.107 Cr.P.C Disposed 4. Crime No.353/2018, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.75 of TNCP Act Disposed 5. Crime No.258/2018, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station U/s.41(2) Cr.P.C Disposed 6. The investigation in this case would be completed and charge sheet would be filed soon. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 7. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is seen that the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 10.00 a.m., on 27.06.2016 and the case in Crime No.655 of 2016 was registered at about 10.40 a.m., and on the same day, the accused were arrested at about 12.45 p.m. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., initially, there is no mention about any of the accused name. In the second statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., all the accused name have been mentioned wantonly. How and in what manner, they were identified in this case is not known and no plausible and convincing reason given by the 1st respondent Police for the same. This creates suspicion in the manner, the case came to be registered. 9. In this case, the 2nd respondent is not a reliable person and he is a person of dubious character. In support of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the judgment in C.C.No.2374 of 2017 passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, wherein the 2nd respondent has been cited as PW2 and his statement is extracted hereunder:- 10. From the above, it is clear that the 2nd respondent is a stock witness to the 1st respondent Police and he used to sign wherever the Police needs his signature. Though objection was made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has six previous cases, from the counter, it is seen that out of six cases, the petitioner got acquitted from five cases and one case is under investigation. In the previous cases, the offence is not of serious in nature. Thus, the FIR registered against the petitioner and other accused is for obvious reasons. In this case, the 2nd respondent is the only witness to the occurrence and no public or independent witness was examined in support of the complaint. In the previous cases, the offence is not of serious in nature. Thus, the FIR registered against the petitioner and other accused is for obvious reasons. In this case, the 2nd respondent is the only witness to the occurrence and no public or independent witness was examined in support of the complaint. In such circumstances, relying on the complaint of the 2nd respondent and proceeding with the investigation would amount to abuse of process of law. Now, the 2nd respondent is willing to withdraw the complaint lodged against the petitioner and other accused and he filed the affidavit to that effect before this Court. 11. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.655 of 2016 against all the accused and the same is quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.