Judgment : Petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.201 of 2013, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said criminal proceedings so far as he is concerned. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire allegations in the F.I.R. and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., from the witnesses would show that the allegations have been made as against Malarkodi/A2, however, due to prior enmity as between the petitioner and the de facto complainant Kailasam, petitioner has been roped in this case. 3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the investigating officer has completed the investigation in Crime No.100 of 2013 and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, for offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 295 and 506(ii) I.P.C., as against accused 1 and 2 and the learned Magistrate also has taken cognizance in C.C.No.201 of 2013 and it is pending trial. 4. High Courts, in exercise of it's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have power to intervene in criminal matters when there is abuse of process of Court or to meet the ends of justice. 5. In this case, it has been contended that prosecuting the petitioner/A1 without any basis or material is an abuse of process of the Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], in para no.102 guidance has been laid down, one of which is that incase, if there is abuse of process of Court, the High Court can intervene under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash such criminal proceedings. If the High Court is convinced that the criminal proceedings are abuse of process of Court, as against any person, at any stage of the case, but before pronouncing Judgment, it can quash the criminal proceedings. 7. In Bhajanlal's case (cited supra), the Honourable Apex Court laid down the following guidelines: “1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or made out a case against the accused ? 2. 7. In Bhajanlal's case (cited supra), the Honourable Apex Court laid down the following guidelines: “1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or made out a case against the accused ? 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code ? 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or Complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. 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. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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." 8. Such a view has also been taken by this Court in S.Nalini vs. State (Crl.O.P.No.22192 of 2013, dated 11.09.2013). 9. In the instant case, the F.I.R. has been lodged by Kailasam, on 11.03.2013. It has been investigated into by the investigating officer. The main witnesses are Kailasam, Selvi and Banumathi. 10. The allegations in the FIR are to the following effect. 9. In the instant case, the F.I.R. has been lodged by Kailasam, on 11.03.2013. It has been investigated into by the investigating officer. The main witnesses are Kailasam, Selvi and Banumathi. 10. The allegations in the FIR are to the following effect. Already there was prior enmity between Subramani/A1 and Subramani's wife's sister, namely, Malarkodi/A2, with regard to worshiping in the temple and on the occurrence day, namely, 11.03.2013, at about 11 a.m., Malarkodi/A2 came there wielding knife and criminally intimidated those, who are present in the temple. She kicked the idol and also abused others. At that time Subramani/A1 was stated to be present and thereafter he ran away. 11. This is the gist of the allegations in the first information report. This is what stated in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., from the de facto complainant Kailasam. 12. There is the verbatim statement of Selvi and Banumathi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They say that on 10.03.2013, during night hours, when they went near the house of A1, they heard A1 telling A2 that they have to destroy the Annammar temple. The occurrence took place on 11.03.2013, at about 09 a.m., and the allegation in the final report as against A1 is that he has instigated A2 to commit the offence. But, except that he was present, nothing has been alleged in the positive sense in the F.I.R., and also in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., The statement of Selvi and Banumathi is not relating to the event alleged to have taken place at the time of occurrence. 13. Considering the allegations as such in the F.I.R. and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., from the main witnesses, it is seen that they do not attract offences under Sections 447, 295, 294(b), 506(ii) I.P.C., as against the petitioner. 14. This Court is convinced that so far as the petitioner/A1 is concerned, there is abuse of process of the Court. 15. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings, in C.C.No.201 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, in so far as petitioner/A1 is concerned are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.