Judgment : A6 in Crime No.680 of 2014, registered by Avaniyapuram Police, came forward with this petition to quash the F.I.R. so for as he is concerned. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant Kaviyarasan is inimical towards the petitioner because earlier in Crime No.653 of 2012 Kaviyarasan's mother has been included as A13 and subsequently in Crime No.654 of 2012, the petitioner namely, Appu @ Dinesh has been included as an accused. To wreck vengeance, Kaviyarasan has lodged the present F.I.R. in crime No.680 of 2014 with concoction. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner's sister Jenitha fell in love with one Manimaran, a friend of Kaviyarasan. Since Kaviyarasan intervened and solved the dispute, now, the lovers are happy, but the mediator is unhappy because he has been dragged in a criminal case. Petitioner is a qualified engineer and now he has been roped in several cases to show him an hardent criminal and mar his future career. The present complaint is motivated, ill conceived. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the F.I.R. in Crime No.680 of 2014 has been lodged by Kaviyarasan and there are allegations disclosing the overtacts as alleged as to the commission of the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. and the investigation is going on. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner wants to escape from Crime No.654 of 2012, that is how he has filed this petition with twisted facts. His present petition is an attempt to escape from the arms of criminal law. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the allegations in the F.I.R. as well as in the grounds raised in the Criminal Original Petition. 7. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can interfere in a criminal matter, when it is shown that the criminal proceedings are initiated is an abuse of the process of the Court. Instances of such abuse are when there is no prima-facie case for the offences alleged or ex-facie it is vengeful act or totally a civil case or the F.I.R. is completely bereft of any information to the Commission of a cognizable offence the Court can interfere and quash the F.I.R. (See STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BHAJANLAL & OTHERS (1992 SUPP. (1) SCC 335). BHAJANLAL & OTHERS (1992 SUPP. (1) SCC 335). 8. Defacto complainant's friend Manimaran and Jenitha, sister of petitioner loved each other. For them love is blind. Ultimately, they have married. In this connection, dispute arose between both the families. Kaviyarasan, the defacto complainant supported Manimaran. 9. In this back drop of the matter, the complaint has been lodged by Kaviyarasan with the Avaniyapuram Police Station alleging commission of offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. as against six accused persons. One of them is the petitioner, namely Dinesh @ Appu. He is A6 in this case. 10. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that on 26.07.2014, at about 9 p.m, near Gurunathan Kovil, Madurai when Kaviarasan came walking, he was wrongfully restrained by A1 to A6 and A6 is alleged to have instigated the other accused that the defacto complainant has promoted the love between Manimaran and Jenitha. They have slapped Kaviarasan and beaten him on his back by their hands and while they were running, they have criminally intimidated the defacto complainant. 11. It is pertinent to note that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 26.07.2014. Whereas in Crime Nos.653 and 654 of 2012, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 30.09.2012. Long after 30.09.2012, namely, on 26.07.2014, the occurrence in the present case is alleged to have taken place. Thus, Crime Nos.653 and 654 of 2012, now could not be a reason for registration of the present F.I.R. in Crime No.680 of 2014. The most important aspect is that the present F.I.R. contains allegations as to the overtacts as alleged by the defacto complainant Kaviarasan. There are prima-facie allegations in the F.I.R. as regards commission of the offences alleged, namely, Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. In the circumstances, at this nascent stage of the case this prosecution cannot be stifled. There is no occasion to invoke the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BHAJANLAL (supra). 12. In the circumstances, petition dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all his contentions at the appropriate stage and time before the concerned Court. 13. With this liberty, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 is closed.