JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.6755 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CB-CID cases, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6755 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CB-CID cases, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) r/w. 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as second accused and no offence is made out as against the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is nothing to do with the crime, since he is a driver of the car and he never indulged any criminal activity as alleged by the prosecution. According to the case of the prosecution, when the defacto complainant coming out of the commissioner office, one Ganapathy along with 10 others intercepted and abused him with filthy language and also criminally intimidated him with brandishing weapons and compelled him to withdraw his complaint on Sujai anand, on the behest of IG, Sivanandi, IPS. Further alleged that the said Ganapathy threatened with dire consequences and also threatened that the case would turn against him. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred and entrusted to CBCID as per the orders passed by this Court. On transferring of investigation the first respondent re-numbered the case in Crime No.7 of 2015 and completed the investigation and file final report as against the petitioner and others in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2. 2.1. He further submitted that even according to the complaint, the petitioner is the driver of the car and he along with another car driver, abused the defacto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. The words uttered by the petitioner are very common in Madras and it would not amount to any abuse on the defacto complainant. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court quashed the entire proceedings as against the first accused in Crl.O.P.No.15585 of 2019 by an order dated 18.07.2019. He further submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is a poor driver and he is no way connected with the other accused. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings. He further submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is a poor driver and he is no way connected with the other accused. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though initially FIR was registered in Crime No.595 of 2015 on the file of the Vepery Police, Chennai, only because of the seriousness in the allegations, entire investigation was transferred on the file of the first respondent. The first respondent after completion of investigation with specific overt-act as against the petitioner laid charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.6755 of 2018 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CB-CID cases, Egmore, Chennai. He further submitted that so far as the first accused is concerned, this Court quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.15585 of 2019 by an order dated 18.07.2019 only on the ground that the first accused was present at some distance from the place on occurrence and there is no specific allegations as against the first accused. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is specific allegations as against him made by all the witnesses who are all eye witnesses for the occurrence. Further submitted that the petitioner is standing on the different footing and as such he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition. 4. Heard Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. 5. Totally there are two accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2. So far as the first accused is concerned, the entire proceeding has been quashed in Crl.O.P.No.15585 of 2019 by an order dated 18.07.2019 on the ground that the first accused standing away from the place of occurrence and there is no specific allegation as against him. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he was the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.TN72AF6868, along with the another driver of the car bearing Reg.No.TN72AD7239 got down from the car and abused the defacto complainant with dire consequences on the public road and also along with rowdy elements they also threatened him if the complaint lodged by him not withdrawn, they will take away the life of the defacto complainant. 6. 6. On perusal of the statement recorded from the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., all have spoken about the words uttered by the petitioner herein against the defacto complainant. Therefore, there is specific allegation as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(1) r/w 34 of IPC. Further all the points raised by the petitioner are disputed question of fact and it cannot be considered by this Court that too under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. These can be considered only before the trial Court during trial by let in evidences. Further the evidences produced along with the final report cannot be appreciated before this Court. 7. In this regard it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:- "12. So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.” 8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows: “19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.” 9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged. .............. 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................." 10. .............. 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................." 10. The above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6755 of 2018 in Crime No.7 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CB-CID cases, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.