JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to STC No.636 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and quash the same.) 1. This petition is filed to call for the entire records pertaining to STC No.636 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and to quash the same. 2. The respondent herein is the complainant in the private complaint STC No.636 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. 3. The petitioners are the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police, respectively in Senthurai Police Station and they have been arrayed as A1 and A2 in the said STC. 4. The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein alleging that they committed offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(II) IPC. The complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur on 06.06.2018 and it was taken on file in STC No.636 of 2018. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering the allegations and materials available on record under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., has taken the complaint for alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(I) IPC only. 6. As per the averment in the private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, when the 1st petitioner was working as Inspector of Police, Senthurai Police Station, on 31.05.2018 there was a dispute between the complainant and one Mahalingam and the said Mahalingam assaulted the complainant and he was admitted in the hospital. According to the complainant, the Inspector of Police filed a false case against him and seven others. The A2 therein was remanded to the judicial custody and other six persons obtained anticipatory bail from the concerned Court. The Inspector of Police, Senthurai Police station, refused to receive the statement from the complainant and hence, he had sent the complaint through registered post. The respondent preferred complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur ordered notice to the petitioners herein. Hence, the above Criminal Original Petition is filed for quashment of the above said private complaint in STC No.636 of 2018. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and there was no representation for the respondent though served. 8. Hence, the above Criminal Original Petition is filed for quashment of the above said private complaint in STC No.636 of 2018. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and there was no representation for the respondent though served. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that at the time of dispute, the respondent's cattles were missing from his house and his cattles were found in Mariamman Temple and when the respondent has filed a complaint before the concerned Police Station, the 1st petitioner/A1 assaulted the complainant. 9. A perusal of the copy of the private complaint filed by the respondent herein in the said STC No.636 of 2018 by the Suriya Narayanan/respondent and the typed set of papers regarding the evidence of LW1-Suriyanarayana, W2-Manivasagan, W3-Tamil Tendral and W4- Poongal, in the said Crl.M.P.No.1461 of 2018 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ariyalur, it appears that after perusing the said statement, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case and numbered the same as STC and issued summons to the petitioners/accused. 10. As per the uncontroverted allegations made in the private complaint, the petitioners herein are men in uniform working as Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police and they are discharging their duty and it appears that they do not possess any personal interest for the above issue. In connection with Crime No.179 of 2018, the respondent and others have been taken to custody in discharge of their official duty, wherein the respondentprivate complainant and his father and mother were arrayed as accused. Furthermore, it is alleged in the complaint that at the time of the dispute the respondent's cattle were missing from his house and subsequently found in Mariamman temple. At that time, the respondent has filed a complaint before the concerned police station and it is averred that the petitioners assaulted the complainant. 11. From the averments made in the private complaint, it is evident that in connection with the other case, the petitioners herein have arrested some people and subsequently, they obtained bail and the averments are to the effect that when they went to lodge a complaint about the missing of their cattle, the petitioners who were police officials have uttered obscene words and gave a slap on the cheek. From the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate, it appears that all the three witnesses have been arrested by these petitioners in connection with some other crime number and after a period of 13 days remand by the learned Judicial Magistrate, they have obtained bail and subsequently, released and thereafter they have lodged this complaint and hence, I find that the respondent herein in having a personal grudge against the police officers, who have discharged their duty in connection with the other crime number as stated supra wherein the respondent along with his family members were remanded to judicial custody and came out on bail. 12. The uncontroverted averment in the private complaint reveals the fact that the petitioners/accused while discharging of their official duty in connection with some other crime number, is said to have caused simple injury to the respondent by slapping and uttering obscene words. 13. Admittedly, these petitioners are public servants as defined under Section 21 of IPC and were discharging their official duty. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that in the absence of any prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the complaint on file, besides, the respondent/complainant, is a habitual offender and relied on the decisions of our Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (10) SCC 705 [Anil Kumar & Others vs. M.K.Aiyappa] and AIR 2016 SCC 3251 [Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr vs State Of Punjab] 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the order dated 07.07.2022 made in Crl.O.P.No.8708 of 2022 wherein, at paragraph No.11, this Court has held as follows “11......Such being the position, there must be a prior sanction to proceed against such Officer. In this regard, the Hon-ble Calcutta High Court in a case in Dr.Nazrul Islam Vs. Basudeb Banerjee and Others reported in CDJ 2022 Cal HC 011, has held as follows; 21. ....... In this regard, the Hon-ble Calcutta High Court in a case in Dr.Nazrul Islam Vs. Basudeb Banerjee and Others reported in CDJ 2022 Cal HC 011, has held as follows; 21. ....... Once it is noticed that there was not previous sanction, as already indicated in various judgments referred to hereinabove, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The above legal position, as already indicated, has been clearly spelt out in Paras Nath Singh [ (2009) 6 SCC 372 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 200} and Subramanian Swamy [ (2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666] cases. ... ... .... Thus, it has been categorically observed by the Hon-ble Supreme Court that if it is noticed there was no previous sanction the Magistrate cannot order investigation against the public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.” 15. Further, records reveal that the respondent and the witnesses have been arrayed as accused in Cr.No.179 of 2018 dated 31.05.2018 on the file of Senthurai Police Station for alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 355, 324 and 506(II) of IPC as well as in another case in FIR No.248 of 2018 dated 03.08.2018, on the file of the same Police Station for alleged offence under Section 294(b), 323, 324, 506(II) and 307 of IPC. Though both the cases are at the instance of one Mr.Sankar S/o.Sivasamy, the second FIR i.e No.248 of 2018 was registered based on the Court Endorsement dated 03.08.2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.2739 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ariyalur. The respondent has filed the present private complaint on 06.06.18. 16. Therefore, this Court finds that the criminal proceeding has been maliciously instituted by the defacto complainant at the instigation of his parents to wreck vengeance against the officers who proceeded against them previously. Hence, this Court can very well interfere by exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 17. Therefore, by applying the above decision and considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the very filing of the private complaint itself is abuse of process of law. 17. Therefore, by applying the above decision and considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the very filing of the private complaint itself is abuse of process of law. That apart, entertaining such complaint and directing to register FIR without applying the mind by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur is nothing but against law which cannot sustain in the eye of law. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, in STC No.636 of 2018, is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.