E UDHAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused in C.C.No.46/2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. THE case has been taken on file by the respondent police for investigation on the strength of the complaint given by the Bench Clerk of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, in which, it has been alleged that the petitioners, on 16.8.2004, alleged to have threatened the Bench Clerk, used filthy language and criminally intimidated him. THE respondent police, on conclusion of the investigation, filed a final report and the same has been taken cognisance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur.

(2.) THE leaned counsel for the petitioners submit that the first petitioner is a practising advocate. Second petitioner is her mother. A maintenance case filed by the second petitioner against her husband was pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tanjavur. An order of maintenance was passed on 9.8.2004. For the enforcement of that order, a registered notice has been issued by the second petitioner. THE first petitioner has gone to the Court to collect the acknowledgement from the Bench Clerk. At that time, the Bench Clerk alleged to have quarrelled with the petitioners and threatened them. THE fist petitioner has lodged a complaint before the learned Principal District Judge against the Bench Clerk, and after enquiry, the Bench Clerk was transferred. In the meantime, a complaint has been given to the respondent Police against the Bench Clerk and the same has been treated as petition enquiry. As the Bench Clerk has been transferred, the issue has been compromised and the complaint was withdrawn on the same day.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the maintenance case, which was pending in that Court has been transferred on the request of the petitioners. It is further contended that on the face of the allegation mentioned in the First Information Report as well as the final report, it appears that the allegation are improbable, unbelivable and if such serious occurrence had taken place, the defacto complainant would have given the complaint on that day itself. Looking at the background situation of the case, it appears that the defacto complainant has initiated this present proceedings with an ulterior motive against the petitioners.