Judgment : Per R. REGUPATHI, J. 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 As the Bench Clerk has been transferred, the issue has been compromised and the complaint was withdrawn on the same day. 3. Subsequently, on 23.9.2004, the present complaint has been given by the very same Bench Clerk to the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, who forwarded the same to the respondent police. On receipt of such complaint, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 353, 294, 506(ii) I.P.C. On conclusion of the investigation, a final report has been filed and the same has been taken cognisance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the incident has taken place on 16.8.2004. The complaint has been initially given only by the first petitioner to the learned Principal District Judge and on account of that the defacto complainant, namely the Bench clerk of Judicial Magistrate II, Thanjavur, has been transferred. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the incident has taken place on 16.8.2004. The complaint has been initially given only by the first petitioner to the learned Principal District Judge and on account of that the defacto complainant, namely the Bench clerk of Judicial Magistrate II, Thanjavur, has been transferred. As the issue has been compromised, even the complaint given before the respondent police has been withdrawn. If really the defacto complainant was aggrieved, a complaint would have been given to the respondent police on the same day itself, but the present complaint has been given on 23.9.2004, after 45 days. In the normal course, such a complaint should have been given to the Police directly. The present complaint has been submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Thanjavur, and the same has been forwarded to the respondent police. The way in which the complaint generated belatedly shows that the same has been done only for the purpose of wrecking vengeance against the petitioners. 5. 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. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also submits that the allegation on the face of it is absurd and unbelievable. 7. I have perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report and other materials culminating in the filing of the final report. Though certain serious allegations are made, the allegations may have to be appreciated in the background of the delay. The first petitioner has previously given a complaint on the very same date itself to the learned Principal District Judge and based on which the defacto complainant was transferred. The first petitioner has given a complaint to the police and only because of the compromise with the the defacto complainant, that was withdrawn. The first petitioner has previously given a complaint on the very same date itself to the learned Principal District Judge and based on which the defacto complainant was transferred. The first petitioner has given a complaint to the police and only because of the compromise with the the defacto complainant, that was withdrawn. If really the allegations of the defacto complainant are true, he would have approached the respondent police on that day itself and all these situations shows that there is no truth in the allegation made by the de facto complainant. 8. Admittedly, there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the Bench Clerk on 16.8.2004. Even in the present complaint, the date has been mentioned only as 16.8.2004. If such a serious incident has happened inside the Court premises and if really all those allegations are true, the Bench Clerk, who is possessed with all knowledge and experience about the procedure of filing of the case etc., ought to have approached the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Thanjavur or the police on the same day itself. But, on the contrary, there are positive materials to substantiate that only the petitioners are aggrieved parties and that is the reason why they lodged the complaint before the learned Principal District Judge. As there are prima facie materials in the allegations given by the petitioners, the Bench Clerk has been transferred. It appears that the learned Principal District Judge has found fault with the Bench Clerk and that is the reason why a punishment has been given to the Bench Clerk by way of transfer. Keeping in mind the punishment given on account of the complaint given by the petitioners, it appears that the defacto complainant was brooding all these days and ultimately came to a conclusion to wreck vengeance on 23.9.2004 by lodging a complaint against the petitioners. All these facts may have to be assessed to see whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not. No doubt, this is a petition to quash the proceedings even before the commencement of the trial. In a case reported in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) supp. (1) SCC 335. The Honourable Subpreme Court Categorised the instances in which a case could be quashed. No doubt, this is a petition to quash the proceedings even before the commencement of the trial. In a case reported in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) supp. (1) SCC 335. The Honourable Subpreme Court Categorised the instances in which a case could be quashed. It has been held that there are certain circumstances, wherein this Court can exercise inherent power to quash the First Information Report and other proceedings. The case on hand fits in with clause 5 and 7 of para 108 of the decision cited supra. One easily come to a conclusion that the present allegation stated in the case is inherently improbable and the allegations has been made with mala fide intention for the purpose of wreacking vengeance on the petitioners. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , (supra) it has been held as follows:- “Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings and accordingly the proceedings pending against the petitioners in CC.No.46 of 2005 is quashed and the this petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.