JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.59 of 2021 as against the petitioner, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.59 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai and quash the same as illegal. 2. The second respondent/defacto complainant is the father of the accused who is the petitioner herein. The allegations made by the second respondent/defacto complainant is that, on 31.01.2021, the petitioner and his wife attacked and scolded the second respondent/defacto complainant and forced him to get out from the house. Thereafter, he has been admitted in KMC Hospital, Chennai and gave a complaint. On the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.59 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 342, 341 and 355 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are civil disputes pending between the second respondent/defacto complainant and his son in connection with the property claims. The complaint has been given with malafide intention, and a suit in O.S.No.9155 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner and his wife before the City Civil Court, Chennai and the same is pending. Even though the petitioner's wife also gave a complaint to the Police alleging harassment meted out to her by the second respondent/defacto complainant, no action has been taken by the first respondent Police so far. 4. Since the offences had not been taken made out, Section 294(b) of IPC ought not to have been attracted. The second respondent/defacto complainant was not kept under any restraint, even as per the allegations of the complaint, the offence under Section 341 of IPC is also not attracted. 5. A mere exchange of words during wordy quarrel cannot be sufficient enough to register the case under Section 506 of IPC also. Neither the petitioner nor his wife used any criminal force or intention against the second respondent/defacto complainant. Since there is a prima facie material available on record, the FIR should be quashed. 5. A mere exchange of words during wordy quarrel cannot be sufficient enough to register the case under Section 506 of IPC also. Neither the petitioner nor his wife used any criminal force or intention against the second respondent/defacto complainant. Since there is a prima facie material available on record, the FIR should be quashed. The second respondent/defacto complainant, who is the father of the petitioner, had given a complaint by alleging that the petitioner and his wife were harassing the second respondent/defacto complainant and his wife and compel them to get away from the house. 6. The second respondent/defacto complainant had already settled the property in his name in favour of his son and his son had settled the property in favour of his wife. Only under these circumstances, the complaint has been given. Even though there might be a civil case pending between the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner, the FIR pertains to certain specific occurrence, which was said to have occurred on the night of 31.01.2021. 7. The allegations as it appears from the records are sufficient enough to attract the offence of assault. Subsequent to the occurrence, the second respondent/defacto complainant had taken treatment in KMC Hospital, Chennai. Since a reading of FIR would show that there are grounds to make out a case against the petitioner, the investigation should be allowed to go on. 8. At the threshold stage of the case itself, the Court cannot conduct roving enquiry. In these circumstances, it is for the prosecution to conduct a thorough investigation to unravel the truth. In order to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., there should be certain specific ground as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat [ AIR 2017 SC 4843 ]. In the said case in Paragraph 15, it has held as under:- "15. The Broad Principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:- (i) Section 482 Cr.P.C preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court. (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. (v) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate. (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 9. In the case in hand, there are prima facie materials available on record are sufficient enough to register the case and take up the investigation. Since the case does not fit in to the above proposition, the case has to be left to the investigation of the first respondent. 10. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.