A. JOE INFANT XAVEO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused filed this Criminal Original Petition challenging the criminal proceedings in S.T.C.No.245 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Thoothukudi, on the ground that, the continuation of criminal proceedings is of abuse process of law.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in S.T.C.No.245 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate - II, Thoothukudi. The Sub Inspector of Police, the second respondent herein, gave a complaint on 7/5/2018, to the first respondent Police alleging that while the complainant along with his Police men doing their patrol work, on 7/5/2018 at about 6.00 p.m., near Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Office, the petitioner by parking his Hyundai I 20 car before the Office hearing the songs in a high sound, thereby, causing disturbance to the public. Hence, the second respondent warned the petitioner, not to disturb the public and asked him to move from the place. For that, the petitioner scolded the second respondent in abusive language and criminally intimidated and causing trouble and preventing the second respondent from discharging his official duties. In this regard, the second respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioner. Based on the complaint, on 7/5/2018, a case was registered in Crime No.143 of 2018 for the offences under Ss. 294(b), 353, 506(i) IPC. After investigation, the first respondent Police filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate - II, Thoothukudi District which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.245 of 2018. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation stated in the complaint is not satisfied the requirement of the ingredients of the offence. He further submitted that no evidence is recorded by the Police to support the prosecution case. The Police relied upon the witnesses 2 to 4, they are falsely supporting the Police case, as the complainant be the Sub Inspector of Police. He further submitted that the Police in the final report had not mentioned the alleged Hundai I 20 car registration number and particulars of the owner of the vehicle. Further, the alleged Hyundai I 20 car was not seized by the Police during the investigation. Further, the complainant Police continued his public work and his work was not prevented by the petitioner.