JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in P.R.C.No.11 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrat No.II, Dharmapuri and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to quash the Final Report taken on file as P.R.C.No.11 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri for the offences under Sections 120(b), 153(A) of I.P.C., Section 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act r/w 109 I.P.C. 2. The Petitioner is the A12 who is the wife of A11. The crux of the prosecution charge is that due to the death of one person belonging to vanniyar community due to love affairs between two different community boy and girl, there were violence against the Schedule Caste people and houses were burnt which also led to damages to the property. After sometime the boy of the Schedule Caste died in a suspicious circumstance. To take vengeance against the other group, the accused joined together to unleash the violence against the other group, were took armed training with weapons under the Thudi movement which was incharge of A11 and A12 husband and wife. All other accused also joined with terrorist movement of naxalpari and tried to assassinate some important persons in other communities. It is the contention of the prosecution that the present petitioner and her husband under their supervision there was arms training to the other accused. During the investigation, the country made guns and other deadly weapons were seized. After completing the investigation, the prosecution filed Final Report. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that there is no materials against the accused; in the FIR her name is not found, only in the Final Report her name is found. Except some confession statement of the other accused implicating A12 there is no other materials available on record to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, submitted that the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law and it is his contention that the confession of the other accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same cannot be used against this petitioner. Hence submitted that the entire Final Report has to be quashed against this petitioner. Therefore, submitted that the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law and it is his contention that the confession of the other accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same cannot be used against this petitioner. Hence submitted that the entire Final Report has to be quashed against this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is a professor and possessed doctorate to her credit she has been unnecessarily implicated. 4. He has also relied upon the following judgments of the Honourable Apex Court : 1. Kashmira Singh Appellant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1952 SC 159 ] 2. Kalpnath Rai vs. State through CBI [ AIR 1998 SC 201 ] 3. State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & others [1977 AIR 1489] 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are materials collected during the investigation, apart from the confession statements. Therefore, the Court cannot go to the probative value of the statements. It is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence come on record. Hence opposed the petition. 6. Normally when the materials are collected by trial Court and prima facie materials are available against the accused, Court would slow in exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Only in the exceptional cases, where the prosecution itself is motivated or interested with mala fide, motive or if there are no materials to proceed further, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In all the judgments of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, the Apex Court after appreciating the evidence in appeal stage, while acquitting the accused has held that the confession alone is not substantive piece of evidence. In the above case, the dictum of the Apex Court is that the very confession itself cannot be a foundation of conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel will not be helpful to him. 7. On perusal of the materials apart from the confession of many accused, statements also available to show that they took arm training under the guidance of Thudi movement which is alleged to have been run by the Petitioner and her husband. Apart from the other charges, Section 120(b) is also slapped against them. 7. On perusal of the materials apart from the confession of many accused, statements also available to show that they took arm training under the guidance of Thudi movement which is alleged to have been run by the Petitioner and her husband. Apart from the other charges, Section 120(b) is also slapped against them. It is relevant to note that Section 10 of the Evidence Act deals with relevancy of the other accused act when there is a conspiracy charge. Any act on the part of the other accused, though it is not known to others, is admissible against all the persons in the conspiracy charge. Therefore, it is premature to contend that the evidence is not available and the entire final report would be set aside. 8. It is also relevant to note that there may be a situation even after commitment of the case to the Sessions court and before the judgment is passed, any of the accused may also seek a pardon and become accomplice. The accomplice is also a competent witness against other accused persons and even the conviction in such case cannot be illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, as per Section 133 of the Evidence Act. Though an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless it corroborates with material particulars, the fact remains that its all depends upon the circumstances of each case and proper appreciation by the Trial Court. In such a view of the matter this Court is not inclined to quash the entire final report. It requires a trial. 9. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, considering the status of the Petitioner that she is working as a lecturer, her personal appearance is dispensed with before the Trial Court, except for receiving copies, answering charges, answering the incriminating materials under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing judgment. The Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial and the cross-examination done by counsel and as a witness examined in chief. 10. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected M.Ps are closed.