JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.62 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.62 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.62 of 2019 pending on the file of the Tiruchendur Police Station. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.69 of 2019, dated 06.02.2019 against one Jerold and 11 others for the offence under Sections 505(1)(b), 505(2) IPC and Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Chairman of the Village Welfare Committee; that on 06.02.2019 at about 07.00 pm, the defacto complainant saw a poster, which was pasted on the back side of the pastor's bungalow, wherein it has been stated that it was addressed against R.C Administration and Tamil Nadu Government; that poster was made to create public nuisance and with an intention to defame and disrespect their village people, that the said poster disrespected their pastor indicating him as a fraud pastor; that the said wall posters were pasted in the area of Thoothukudi, Tiruchendur, Srivaigundam and Kootapanai area and that the complainant came to know that 11 Vallakkarar joined hands with the first accused Jerold and pasted the posters. 4. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Judge of this Court has directed the respondent Police to continue with the investigation, but with a condition not to file the final report. 4. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Judge of this Court has directed the respondent Police to continue with the investigation, but with a condition not to file the final report. When the matter was taken up on 19.04.2022, another learned Judge of this Court, on going through the records and on hearing the submissions made by the first respondent official, who was present before the Court and taking note of the fact that it is a group rivalry between the two fishermen community people, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to convene another peace committee meeting on or before 6th June 2022 and directed both the parties to attend the peace committee meeting and also directed the officials to inform about the outcome of the meeting. 5. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, peace committee meeting was convened on 28.05.2022 and the Revenue Divisional Officer at Tiruchendur, has submitted a report, dated 10.06.2022, wherein it has been stated that the meeting was convened on 28.05.2022 that both 'A' and 'B' party were present, but the petitioner Mohamed Ali Jinnah, has not turned up and that 'B' party without co-operating for the meeting had left the meeting; that as per the request of 'A' party, meeting was adjourned to 03.06.2022 and despite the receipt of notice, 'B' party and the petitioner remained absent, but 'A' party people attended for meeting. 6. It has been further stated that 'B' party had informed that since they were not getting any result for existing disputes, they will approach the Court and redress their grievance and thereby refused to attend the peace committee meeting and that 'A' party had expressed their readiness and willingness to live peacefully. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the Madurai District Court and Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Moreover, the petitioner's name does not find place in the FIR. As already pointed out, FIR was registered against one Jerold of Amali Nagar and 11 other persons along with person owning cell number shown in the poster. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent Police on 08.02.2019 has arrested the named accused Jerold and eight others including the petitioner and submitted a requisition for remand and the learned Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities has passed an order, remanding all the accused to judicial custody. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent Police on 08.02.2019 has arrested the named accused Jerold and eight others including the petitioner and submitted a requisition for remand and the learned Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities has passed an order, remanding all the accused to judicial custody. 9. As already pointed out, the first accused Jerold's name alone finds place in the FIR and admittedly, there are no averments or allegations against the petitioner herein. But in the remand report, the first respondent has alleged that from the examination of the witnesses, he came to know that the involvement of the accused/A2 to A9 with the first accused in the occurrence was true and hence, he requested to add 10 accused in the above case and for remanding the accused. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no such occurrence happened on the date and time mentioned in the FIR; that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR and Confession, but due to the previous motive and enmity, the defacto complainant lodged a frivolous case against the petitioner, that the first respondent added the name of the petitioner at the inducement of the defacto complainant; that the First Information Report does not disclose any cognizable offence and that the defacto complainant, is an absconding accused in PCR case in Crime No. 344 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent Police, but the first respondent instead of arresting the defacto complainant, handshake with him and foisted the false case against the petitioner. 11. It is not in dispute that though the case was registered orginally for the offence under Section 505(1)(b), 505(2) IPC and Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, subsequently altered to Sections 505(1)(b), 505(2), 294(b) and 153(A) IPC and under Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. 12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the first accused Jerold gave a voluntary confession statement and on the basis of the said confession, the other accused were implicated. Admittedly, the first respondent has not produced the confession statement alleged to have given by the first accused. 12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the first accused Jerold gave a voluntary confession statement and on the basis of the said confession, the other accused were implicated. Admittedly, the first respondent has not produced the confession statement alleged to have given by the first accused. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioner has produced the copy of the poster now in dispute, alleged to have been pasted in the back side of the pastor's bungalow. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the posters, the same was shown to be addressed to 'R.C eph;thfNk! jkpof muNr!' and to permit them to live and to render justice. In the said poster, it has been alleged that some 500 persons belonging to 60 families were ex-communicated by following untouchability and that bogus paster Ravindran was not allowing them to offer prayers and for burial. Further, they have claimed some reliefs to implement the orders of High Court and the peace committee, arrest the anti-social elements and to disqualify the pastor Ravindran and etc,. 14. No doubt, in the said poster, cell number was mentioned as 95668 34063. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with others had pasted the said posters or at the instigation of the petitioner, the said posters were pasted. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was also responsible for the contents of the posters. The petitioner by seeking the relief of quashing the case in Crime No.62 of 2019, has produced the copies of the FIR and the remand report. 15. As already pointed out, according to the petitioner, though his name does not find place in the FIR, he was implicated subsequently and on the basis of the remand report submitted by the first respondent, he was remanded. As already pointed out, this Court while granting interim order, directed the respondent not to file final report, but specifically directed them to proceed with the investigation. 16. But admittedly, the first respondent has not produced any records or materials to show that the petitioner was also involved in the alleged offence. Except the remand report, there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence. 16. But admittedly, the first respondent has not produced any records or materials to show that the petitioner was also involved in the alleged offence. Except the remand report, there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence. Even now, it is not the case of the prosecution that they have completed the investigation and are ready to file the charge sheet. 17. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, just because the petitioner has not participated in the peace committee meeting, no adverse reference can be drawn against him. 18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the materials available, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to show any prima facie materials for the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence and to proceed further against him. Hence, this Court is of the clear view that permitting the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner would only amount to abuse of process of law and hence, the case in Crime No.62 of 2019 is liable to be quashed. 19. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in FIR in Crime No.62 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.