Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.404 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent police for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 498(A), 506(II) and 379 of I.P.C. Seeking to quash the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr. K. Duraisamy learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent as well as perused the records carefully. 3. Facts of the case, which resulted in the F.I.R., in brief, would be as follows: (i) The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. According to the F.I.R. one Mr. Kumar @ Viswanathan is working as a driver with the petitioner for the past 22 years. Mr. Kumar @ Viswanathan, on few occasions, used unparliamentary and abusive language against the defacto complainant. When this was informed to the petitioner, she did not respond and she did not heed to the words of the defacto complainant. On the instigation of the driver, it is alleged that the petitioner had driven the defacto complainant and her husband out of the house. (ii) The F.I.R. further states that on 08.06.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. Mr. Kumar @ Viswanathan and his brother Mr. Devarajan and three others came to the house of the defacto complainant with 10 henchmen with deadly weapons to do away the defacto complainant and her husband. But fortunately they were not there at that time. Then Mr. Kumar @ Viswanathan told the people who gathered there that they had come there only to do away with the defacto complainant and her husband. Since huge crowd of people started gathering there, they disbursed. (iii) Again on 09.06.2009, at about 8.00 am when the defacto complainant, her husband and his brother were returning from Pallipallayam village to Thiruchengode, Kumar @ viswanathan, Devarajan and three others had chased them in Lancer Car bearing registration No.TN-09-AC-9155 and dashed the said car against the car in which the defacto complainant and her husband were travelling. The car came to a halt. The people who travelled in the Lancer Car got down from the car and attempted to kill the husband of the defacto complainant. They pushed him and robbed him of three sovereigns gold chain from his neck. The car came to a halt. The people who travelled in the Lancer Car got down from the car and attempted to kill the husband of the defacto complainant. They pushed him and robbed him of three sovereigns gold chain from his neck. On hearing the alarm raised, since general public started gathering, they left the place. (iv) According to the defacto complainant, Mr. Kumar @ Viswanathan and others would have been instigated only by the petitioner to commit the above crime. With these allegations complaint was made and upon which the present case has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 498(A), 506(II) and 379 of I.P.C. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the allegations, in the F.I.R. the petitioner was not physically present and participated in the occurrence. Therefore, Sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. cannot be invoked against her at all. So far as Section 498(A) of I.P.C. is concerned, absolutely there is no allegation made out in the complaint and therefore Section 498(A) also has got no role to play at all in the case. So far as Section 506(ii) and 379 of I.P.C. are concerned, according to the learned senior counsel there is no material to show that the petitioner had anything to do with the said alleged occurrence committed by rest of the accused. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, she has been included as an accused in the F.I.R. out of mala fide. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that investigation has been stayed by this Court by an interim order in the present petition and so investigation could not be progressed. He would further submit that there are allegations against the petitioner also and therefore the matter requires through investigation. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that at this stage, this Court can not meticulously look into the allegations so as to say as to whether these offences have been really committed or not. He would submit that there are allegations prima facie against the petitioner and therefore the Investigating Officer should be allowed to do the investigation and file a final report. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Dutt and others Vs. State of Punjab.. He would submit that there are allegations prima facie against the petitioner and therefore the Investigating Officer should be allowed to do the investigation and file a final report. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Dutt and others Vs. State of Punjab.. In that case the petition for quashing the F.I.R. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. came up before the High Court and the High Court declined to quash the F.I.R. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the Hon'ble Supreme Court the main argument was that the High Court had failed to take into consideration that the admitted events would clearly and unequivocally show that the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent herein was an act of mala fide based on political consideration. 8. While considering the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of its Judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 proceedings against the accused, then the F.I.R. should be quashed. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (7) SCALE 85 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “16. It is furthermore well known that no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by the Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by the Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the Superior Courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court again referred to the sub-para (7) of para 102 of its judgement in Bhajan Lal case (cited supra) which reads as follows: “(7) 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 then the F.I.R. should be quashed.” In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on facts, the appellants had made out an exceptional case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to invoke its power under Section 482 of the Code. 10. The learned senior counsel nextly relied on yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijay Satadekar reported in 2008 (13) SCALE 523 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to decide the correctness of the order taking cognizance on a private complaint. In my considered opinion, this judgment cannot be made use of for our case, because that was a case instituted on a private complaint. It is well known that consideration while dealing with a case on a private complaint for quashing the case is different from consideration to quash the F.I.R. 11. If we refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 if the Court finds that the F.I.R. suffers from mala fide or it is so absurd and inherently improbable then the Court ought to quash the case. Similarly, if the Court finds that no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, then also the Court should not hesitate to quash the F.I.R. 12. Similarly, if the Court finds that no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, then also the Court should not hesitate to quash the F.I.R. 12. Applying these principles, if we look into the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the firm view that absolutely there is no reason to interfere at this stage. 13. First of all, the main argument of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence and therefore registration of the case under Sections 147 and 148 is illegal. A perusal of the F.I.R. would go to show that there were more than five people with common object to attack the husband of the defacto complainant. That is the reason why Sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. have been included in the F.I.R. So far as theft and criminal intimidation are concerned, there are materials in the F.I.R. itself. Whether Section 498(A) of I.P.C is made out or not is a separate issue which would be investigated into by the police. 14. From the allegations in the F.I.R. it is crystal clear that there are materials and there was an occurrence which needs to be investigated. According to the defacto complainant, she suspects that the assailants would have been instigated only by the petitioner. This allegation is not totally baseless. It is not as though the petitioner has got nothing to do with Mr. Kumar @ Viswanathan who happens to be the driver of the petitioner. Considering the past incidents and the conduct of the petitioner the defacto complainant suspects that the petitioner should have instigated the other accused. Whether the petitioner had really investigated or not and whether she has got any other involvement in the crime are all matters to be investigated. 15. At this stage, at its threshold, I cannot quash the F.I.R. as I do not agree with the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the F.I.R. suffers from mala fide and it is absurd. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation would be done promptly and truth will be reveled within a period of two months. The said statement is recorded. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation would be done promptly and truth will be reveled within a period of two months. The said statement is recorded. 16. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed however, with a direction to the first respondent to expedite the investigation and complete the same within a period of two months as it has been undertaken by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court. It is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order as the said observations are only for the purpose of this petition. The Investigating Officer shall investigate the case independently and in an unbiased manner so as to find out the truth. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.