ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the Charge Sheet laid against the petitioner in P.R.C. No. 14 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ramanathapuram. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (i) It is submitted that she has been falsely implicated in a murder case alleged to have happened on 08.11.2010 and that she used to visit from Singapore to India and vice versa for her business avocation. She has stated that she was not at all available in India from 15.08.2010 to 12.11.2010 and the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 08.11.2010. Therefore, according to her, it is highly improbable and impossible for her involvement in the alleged occurrence. (ii) She has also submitted that it is evident from her passport that she was not in India between 15.08.2010 and 12.11.2010 and therefore, the question of implication of the petitioner in the case does not arise at all. Based on the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., from one T.Pappa, who is none other than the own sister-in-law of the deceased Adilabhanu and is said to have overheard the alleged conspiracy during the beginning of November, 2010, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. (iii) It is the submission of the petitioner that the respondent police, after investigation, had filed a final report, which was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram in P.R.C.No.9 of 2011, by adding the petitioner as A11 and subsequently, the case was split up as P.R.C. No. 14 of 2013 by the said Magistrate against the petitioner arraying as A3. The charge sheet has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the defacto complainant made arrangements and hired the witness with an intention to implicate the petitioner in the case and therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is against law. Secondly, it is stated that the respondent police have implicated the petitioner on the basis of the statement made by the said Pappa without verifying the petitioner's availability in India at the relevant point of time. Therefore, it is prayed that the Charge Sheet is liable to be quashed. 3. Secondly, it is stated that the respondent police have implicated the petitioner on the basis of the statement made by the said Pappa without verifying the petitioner's availability in India at the relevant point of time. Therefore, it is prayed that the Charge Sheet is liable to be quashed. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been mentioned as under: (i) It is stated that the petitioner is one of the accused in a triple murder case registered in Kenikarai Police Station in Crime No.500 of 2010 under Women Missing, pursuant to the complaint lodged by one Saibu Nisha that her daughter Adila Banu and two grand children were missing. Subsequently, the dead bodies of the missing persons were found at Vadipatti Police Station limited on 11.11.2010 and cases in Crime Nos.793 and 794 of 2010 under Section 302 IPC were registered on the complaint of VAO by the Vadipatti Police. (ii) It is further stated in the counter that during the course of investigation by Vadipatti Police, it was revealed that the missing persons Adila Banu and her two children were murdered by one Shahul, son of the petitioner and others by hatching a conspiracy with other accused due to previous enmity. The deceased were kidnapped in a car owned by A1, that they murdered them inside the said car and buried in a coconut thoppu belonging to A10 / mother of the petitioner. Further probe into the matter revealed that there was a long standing enmity between one Seenikatti group and Ramali group of Sathankulam Village within the jurisdiction of Kenikkarai Police Station and on 14.05.2002, one Mohamed Jinnah belonging to Seenikatti group was murdered by the other group, which resulted in registration of a case in Crime No.200 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 IPC in which one Muthusamy, husband of the deceased Adhila Banu was an eye witness, who subsequently turned hostile during the trial of the case. Enraged by the same, the said Muthusamy was beaten by A1/Shahul and his men and the deceased Adhila Banu rebuked his act stating that she would take revenge against those responsible for the assault of her husband. Enraged by the same, the said Muthusamy was beaten by A1/Shahul and his men and the deceased Adhila Banu rebuked his act stating that she would take revenge against those responsible for the assault of her husband. (iii) The 1st respondent has also stated that when the revenge of the deceased was informed to the petitioner by her son, they all hatched conspiracy to do away with the life of the deceased. The part played by the petitioner was brought to light by Pappa before the Investigating Officer and also in her 164 statement before the Magistrate. Subsequently, the investigation has been transferred to CBCID, Ramanathapuram District. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against 13 accused before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram for offences under Sections 147, 120(b), 364, 302, 404, 201 IPC r/w 109 IPC. (iv) It is further stated in the counter that apart from annexing a copy of passport bearing No.Z1231508 in the typed-set filed by the petitioner in her anticipatory bail petition, she is having another passport bearing No.K0715911 issued at Singapore by the Indian High Commission after producing a copy of the passport bearing No.Z1231508 before the High Court Madurai Bench for obtaining anticipatory bail. Thus, it is the stand that the petitioner could have secured more than one passport by having influence on the authorities concerned and could have travelled to commit the offence and that the plea of her non availability in India from 15.08.2010 to 12.11.2010 is not correct and her claim of alibi at this stage is not maintainable, as the prosecution has collected sufficient materials to prove her presence in India. Hence, it is prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case based on a conversation, which was just overheard and deposed by one Pappa and that the petitioner was not the co-conspirator, as she was not at all available in India at the time of occurrence. This Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that she was not available in India on the particular date and the conditions imposed therein have been duly complied with. He has submitted that she has furnished all the documents, including the passport to the authorities concerned and it is for them to cross-check the genuineness of the same. He has submitted that she has furnished all the documents, including the passport to the authorities concerned and it is for them to cross-check the genuineness of the same. According to him, this Court already directed the Officials to verify all the documents and file a report. But as on date, no report has been filed either before this Court or before the Trial Court as to the reality of the documents. 5. Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has vehemently contended that it is a case of triple murder and it cannot be so slightly dealt with. The triple murder in the guise of honour killing had taken place in this case on account of the deceased's marriage with one scheduled caste person. All the dead bodies were attempted to be buried in a Thoppu and on hearing the shout of a watchman, the bodies were torn into pieces and thrown. He has further contended it is incorrect to state that the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered her passport and pursuant to the order of this Court, the passport was surrendered after obtaining extension of time for the same. Mere entry in the passport cannot be taken as a basis for proving alibi, as there is every possibility of impersonation by using the passport of the petitioner and the passport entry is not an impeccable entry. He has also put forth his contention, stating that as per the version of the prosecution, there are two passports, one issued in India and another one issued in Singapore. 6. At this stage, it was interrupted by the counsel for the petitioner that on expiry / exhaustibility of pages of old passport, the other one was received through proper method from the Indian High Commission at Singapore and there is no incongruous trick in the way of obtaining new passport. Therefore, it was urged that in absence of any proof or evidence of impersonation, the argument advanced in air cannot be accepted. A perusal of the copy of the passport makes it clear that since the pages in the passport are exhausted on account of frequent travel by the petitioner, the petitioner applied for a fresh passport and the contention raised in this regard has no relevance at this stage. 7. A perusal of the copy of the passport makes it clear that since the pages in the passport are exhausted on account of frequent travel by the petitioner, the petitioner applied for a fresh passport and the contention raised in this regard has no relevance at this stage. 7. The counsel for the 2nd respondent has further added that the contention with regard to the genuineness of the entries in the passport may be raised before the Trial Court during trial and the same cannot be assessed by this Court, as the question of appreciation is involved in it. Even though this Court earlier ordered splitting up of the case and time has been fixed for early completion of the matter, the proceedings are being prolonged by one accused or the other, by taking advantage of the pendency of this petition before this Court. Had the Trial been allowed to be conducted in regular course, it could have been concluded by this time and a finality could be reached. 8. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent has submitted that the case was committed to Sessions Court and that the same was posted for regular trial from 06.01.2016. All the contentions raised by the petitioner are matters for appreciation of evidence during trial and it cannot be looked into or ascertained at this premature stage. Therefore, he pleaded that this petition has to be dismissed so as to allow the Trial Court to proceed with the matter. 9. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and the counsel for the defacto complainant / 2nd respondent. 10. Initially, though a case in Crime No.500 of 2010 was registered under Woman Missing, subsequently, on the complaints of two Village Administrative Officers stating that three dead bodies were found at two different places in the jurisdictional limit of Vadipatti Police Station, two cases in Crime Nos.793 and 794 of 2010 came to be registered by them. In this case, the statements deposed by the one Pappa under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are given much importance, which is the only evidence against the petitioner to prove the factum of her conspiracy in the alleged offence. In this case, the statements deposed by the one Pappa under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are given much importance, which is the only evidence against the petitioner to prove the factum of her conspiracy in the alleged offence. For better appreciation, the relevant passage of the statements given in Tamil by the said Pappa are extracted as under: Statement adduced under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Deposition under Section 164(3) Cr.P.C. 11. It is not in dispute that anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court on 07.02.2014 on the ground that one week prior to the date of occurrence, she had been residing at Malaysia. According to the counsel for the defacto complainant, anticipatory bail was obtained only on 07.02.2014, whereas the occurrence had taken place as long as on 08.11.2010 and that the conditions imposed by this Court were not duly complied with, which forced the State to file a petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. In the said petition, on 01.09.2014, this Court, while declining to cancel the bail, directed the petitioner to surrender her passport and even thereafter, the passport of the petitioner was not surrendered and extension of time was sought for surrender of the passport. 12. It is the stand of the petitioner that on 05.12.2014, this Court directed the petitioner to produce all the travel documents relating to those periods before the Investigating Authority, with a direction to them to scrutinise the same and file a report before this Court. Even though the petitioner has handed over all the required documents, no report has been filed in this Court so far. To controvert the said submission, the counsel for the defacto complainant has quoted a judgment of this Court in the case of K.S. Dhandapani vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Chennimalai, reported in 2010-1-L.W.(Crl.) 531, to contend that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of quashment of FIR and it is for the accused to establish such plea of alibi at the time of trial. 13. By the Inspector of Police, Chennimalai, reported in 2010-1-L.W.(Crl.) 531, to contend that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of quashment of FIR and it is for the accused to establish such plea of alibi at the time of trial. 13. The submission of the defacto complainant merits acceptance and is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 692, wherein it has been held as under: "It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Judge. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors. ( 1992 (3) SCC 317 ), it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of the Code, which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved. When the factual position of the case at hand is considered in the light of principles of law highlighted, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation and proceedings in the connected case (Crime No. 116/94) registered by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior. We set aside the impugned judgment. The State shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter further." 13.1. We set aside the impugned judgment. The State shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter further." 13.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 , has urged the same as follows: "It is evident from the above that this Court was considering the rare and exceptional cases where the High Court may consider unimpeachable evidence while exercising jurisdiction for quashing under Section 482 of the Code. In the present case, however, the question involved is not about the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code where along with the petition the accused may file unimpeachable evidence of sterling quality and on that basis seek quashing, but is about the right claimed by the accused to produce material at the stage of framing of charge." 14. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, held that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not obligatory for the judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 15. This Court is very cautious of the dictum laid down that to invoke its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that the defence of the accused is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts and that the material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such circumstances, the judicial conscience of this Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the Court and secure the ends of justice. 16. Keeping in mind the above, if the present case is looked into, a perusal of the allegations levelled against the petitioner will not lead this Court to rule out, reject and completely discard the version of the prosecution or defacto complainant, as I do find any extraordinary circumstances prevailing over, warranting intervention of this Court to quash the charge sheet, which is at the committal stage. In addition, the apprehension of the defacto complainant that the triple murder was on account of retaliation, due to the inter-religious marriage of the deceased, namely, Adhila Banu with one Muthusamy, belonging to Scheduled Caste community, cannot be simply brushed aside without there being any strong material to abandon the same. The manner in which the triple murder took place creates suspicion in the mind of this Court as to whether there is any honor killing, owing to interreligious marriage, in the guise of vengeance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh vs State of U.P. & Another, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 , has heavily condemned the act of honor killing by stating as under: "The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or interreligious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. We sometimes hear of 'honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism. 17. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that except the statement of Pappa, which was recorded after a lapse of four months, no other material has been produced to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 2753 . 18. An utmost caution is required to deal with the present case, as it is a case of triple murder. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 2753 . 18. An utmost caution is required to deal with the present case, as it is a case of triple murder. Whether the petitioner has involved in the alleged offence or not; whether there is any conspiracy or nor; and whether the passport of the petitioner was used by any third person so as to help the petitioner escape from the clutches of law, are all matters for evidence to be appreciated before the Trial Court and this Court cannot appraise the same now. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M.T. Watches Ltd. vs. M.A. Abida and Another, reported in 2015 (2) CTC 446 (SC) has clearly laid down a dictum that unless the parties are given full opportunity to lead evidence either to prove or to defend their respective cases, it is not possible for any Court to come to a definite conclusion as to the real circumstances of the case. 20. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is not inclined to stall the proceedings before the Trial Court and there is no iota of reason for this Court to quash the charge sheet. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. On the matter being taken up for trial, the Trial Court is directed to conduct the case on day today basis and the case shall not be adjourned beyond three working days consecutively at any point of time.