ORDER : This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.3 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent under Sections 417, 376 and 313 IPC and quash the same as against this petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and the learned counsel for R2. 3. It is the case of the defacto complainant that she and one Saravanakumar/A1 were in love with each other and that on the promise of marrying her, A1 had sexual intercourse with her, on account of which, the defacto complainant became pregnant. It is further alleged by the defacto complainant that she was taken by A1 and other accused to Virudhunagar Kalidoss Hospital, where they refused to perform abortion. Therefore, she was taken to Selvalakshmi Clinic, where a 65 year old lady appears to have performed abortion. Challenging the FIR, the petitioner, who is said to be the 65 year old lady is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the FIR and submitted that the defacto complainant has very clearly stated in the complaint that even prior to 20.12.2015, Saravanakumar had taken her to his relative's house and has made her undergo abortion and therefore, the allegation that she was taken to Selvalakshmi clinic cannot be true. 5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 6. On reading of the entire FIR, there are sufficient materials for the investigation to proceed. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 has laid down the parameters for quashing an FIR. The present FIR does not pass muster the law laid down by the Supreme Court (supra). 7. It is seen that for no rhyme or reason, Mrs. Yasotha, Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar, has been made as a respondent by name in the quash petition by making unsubstantiated allegations against her. Therefore, this Court deletes her from the array of the respondents. 8. In view of the fact that there are prima facie materials for the investigation to proceed with, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Therefore, this Court deletes her from the array of the respondents. 8. In view of the fact that there are prima facie materials for the investigation to proceed with, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the investigation in this case shall be conducted under the supervision of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Sub-Division. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.