Judgment 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.342/09, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The petitioners have stated in the petition that they have been arrayed as Accused Nos.3 to 5 and they have preferred this petition to quash the F.I.R culminated by way of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Tiruchirapalli, who has forwarded the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the first respondent herein, who has in turn registered a case in Cr.No.342 of 2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 354, 385, 389 and 500 of I.P.C. 3. According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant has been appointed as a Junior Grade Teacher on 02.06.2005. Thereafter, her appointment has been regularized as PG Assistant (Maths) at Holy Cross Girls Higher Secondary School, Ponmalai, Trichy and A-1 is the Headmistress and A2 is the Class Teacher of VIII Standard 'A' Section of the said school. The 1st petitioner (A3) is the Correspondent of the school; 2nd petitioner (A4) is the Provisional of the Sisters of Cross and 3rd petitioner is the Mother General. 4. The allegation is that A-1 harassed and compelled the defacto complainant to resign from the school, with the aid of A-2. The first petitioner herein, namely A-3, who is the Correspondent of the school has issued a suspension order against the defacto complainant, even before lodging the complaint as early as on 25.01.2009 itself. The petitioners herein are rendering service to girl students and they have sacrificed the worldly life and the defacto complainant, with malafide intention, has given a false complaint, only to harass and defame the petitioners and the institution. Though the defacto complainant is qualified, she is incapable of taking classes for XI and XII standards. There is nothing to fasten a criminal liability against the petitioners herein even according to the allegations of the defacto complainant. Hence, the petitioners have requested to call for records in Cr.No.342 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Tiruchirapalli and to quash the same. 5. There is nothing to fasten a criminal liability against the petitioners herein even according to the allegations of the defacto complainant. Hence, the petitioners have requested to call for records in Cr.No.342 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Tiruchirapalli and to quash the same. 5. The pertinent point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Original petition is as follows: “Whether the petitioners are entitled to get an order to quash the proceedings initiated by the Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station in Cr.No.342 of 2009 for the reasons stated in the petition?” 6. In the typed set at page No.1, the petitioners have enclosed the suspension order issued by the first petitioner namely the Correspondent of Holy Cross Girls Higher Secondary School, Ponmalai, Trichy-4. The suspension order has been given to the defacto complainant on 25.01.2009, pending enquiry. Further, the petitioners have admitted that the defacto complainant has been appointed as a Junior Grade Teacher on 02.06.2005 and the first petitioner has issued the suspension order against the defacto complainant, even before lodging the complaint, as early as on 25.01.2009 itself. Further, the petitioners have stated that the defacto complainant, with malafide intention has given a false complaint only to harass and defame the petitioners and there is nothing to fasten the criminal liability against the petitioners herein. At page No.2 of the typed set, the petitioners have enclosed the copy of the private complaint filed by the defacto complainant against the petitioners herein and at page No.17 of the typed set, the petitioners have enclosed a copy of the F.I.R in Cr.No.342 of 2009, dated 27.06.2009 submitted by R-1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, No.V, Trichy. 7. Certainly, it is left open to the petitioner to put forth the said contentions before the first respondent Police and also to get an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only on the following category of cases. 1. To give effect to an order under the Code; 2. To prevent abuse of the process of Court; and 3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice. Further, on a thorough verification of the entire records in the present case, it is found that inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate proceedings taken by the first respondent Police. To prevent abuse of the process of Court; and 3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice. Further, on a thorough verification of the entire records in the present case, it is found that inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate proceedings taken by the first respondent Police. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has observed that the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. Courts have consistently taken the view that they must use the Court's extraordinary power only to prevent injustice and secure ends of justice. Certainly, the first respondent has to take such proceedings, as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. This Court is not finding any sound principles to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the first respondent Police. Further, in the present case, It is not possible to quash the complaint lodged by the complainant at the threshold before materials are submitted in support of the complaint in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The legal position is that the High Court should exercise inherent powers with utmost care and in exercise of inherent powers, proper scrutiny of facts concerned are absolutely necessary. It is a question of fact and law, to see that whether any offence has been committed. The said act has to be inferred from the materials and records to be submitted by the complainant. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and carefully with great caution and such exercise has to be justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. In the case on hand also it is seen that the present case has not justified the exercise of the said power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the petitioner herein has clearly admitted the above mentioned details. 9. Further, changing social realities and the emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence, Government have been reviewing the existing law, procedures and system of administration of justice, with a view to bringing about great accountability and transparency in them, and devising, efficient and effective methods of dealing with the situation. The present petition to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.342 of 2009 is not entertainable and all the allegations mentioned in the petition are only to be raised during the investigation. The present petition to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.342 of 2009 is not entertainable and all the allegations mentioned in the petition are only to be raised during the investigation. Further, the materials on record indicate that the disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in the proceedings filed before this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. Certainly the first respondent Police is clothed with power to take such proceedings, as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. Further, it is seen that there is no flagrant abuse of process of law. The High Court cannot enter into the merits of the case and pronounce upon the truth and correctness of the complaint filed by the complainant, at this stage. Further, it is seen that the complainant should be afforded sufficient opportunity to adduce all available materials and records to arrive at a conclusion and mutually so in case of petitioners herein. 11.In the result, R1-police is hereby directed to examine in detail all the materials on records and documents that would be furnished by both parties and to continue with the further proceedings in Crime No.342 of 2009 and to take appropriate proceedings, independently, after giving opportunity to both sides to put forth their contentions. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the matter. It is also made clear that it is open to the both parties to put forth their contentions, effectively, in accordance with law before the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to take appropriate proceedings as expeditiously as possible as the petitioners herein have clearly mentioned about the case in Crime No.342 of 2009. This Court is sure that the further proceedings will be done properly and diligently by the first respondent-police. Further both the parties are directed to cooperate with R1-police to take appropriate further proceedings on merits and also, in accordance with law. Liberty is granted to approach this court in order to pass appropriate orders, if any unnecessary delay in disposal of the said case in accordance with law, is made by any one. 12. The Criminal Original petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 is closed.