JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Spl.C.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram.) 1. The present petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Spl.C.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram. 2. Facts, in brief, behind the filing of the present petition are as under:- i) The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1, had joined as Headmistress cum Hostel Warden in Government Tribal Residential Middle School (GTR Middle School), Paranginatham, Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District, a School for denotified community and was serving so during the check period from 1.8.2011 to 10.9.2014 and subsequently, she was transferred to ADW Middle School, Namachivayapuram and has been continuing there. ii) During the said check period, A2 to A11 in the present criminal proceedings were serving as Teachers in the same school. iii) During the check period, a Preliminary Enquiry in No.123/2014/EDN/VPM was conducted as per the direction of the Directorate of Vigilance, Anti-Corruption, Chennai. iv) The enquiry revealed that the petitioner, who was in charge of organizing food for the hostel students and claim the amount spent by way of reimbursement, had defrauded the Government by falsifying the accounts and records to show that 300 students were regularly staying in Hostel whereas only 200 to 220 students had stayed and they alone had been fed in the hostel and thereby induced the Government to make excess payment by way of reimbursement. v) Upon such revelation, a complaint in Crime No.01/2015 came to be filed against the petitioner on the file of the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 477-A, 420, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. vi) On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and 10 others before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram District. Seeking to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/A1. 3. vi) On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and 10 others before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram District. Seeking to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/A1. 3. The core submission of Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is as under:- i) The duty of the petitioner is to take care the inmates of the hostel as warden and to provide food to them and in that process, the petitioner was to pay for the provisions, vegetables and other requirements, which will be reimbursed to her after a period of four months. ii) The quantity of food handled is used to be entered in Form No.8 while the attendance of students is used to be entered in Form No.7 and both the stock registers are subjected to periodical inspection by the Tahsildar, A.D. Welfare. Accordingly, it was done on various dates during the check period and on 4.1.2013, the inspection was done by the Revenue Divisional Officer, however, no adverse remarks have been found against the petitioner. iii) The petitioner received reimbursement in respect of the amount spent by her for purchasing firewood and she had refused to part with some amount as claimed by some teachers, who were working with the petitioner from the said reimbursement, as she alone had spent for the same, they developed some grudges against her and lodged a false complaint her, which ended in final report against her and 10 others. iv) No proper investigation has been done by the respondent police. The stock register, attendance registers and other relevant records have not at all been verified by the respondent. All the transactions are borne by records and subjected to periodical inspection by the authorities, without there being any adverse remarks against the petitioner. v) The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the FIR and the final report are absolutely not tenable in law and thus, the entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.13 of 2022 are liable to be quashed. 4. v) The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the FIR and the final report are absolutely not tenable in law and thus, the entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.13 of 2022 are liable to be quashed. 4. Referring to the order passed by this court dated 24.2.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.17954 of 2022 filed by some of the teachers/colleagues, who are arrayed as co-accused in the same criminal proceedings, wherein the criminal proceedings against them have been quashed by this court, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the principle of parity also, the criminal proceedings pending against petitioner are liable to be quashed. 5. Pointing out the contents of the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted his arguments as under:- i) The petitioner was working as Headmistress cum Hostel Warden in GTR Middle School, Paranginatham, Chinnasalem Taluk in Kallakurichi during the check period viz., from 1.8.2011 to 10.9.2014. During the said period, there were only 274 students, however, the petitioner had claimed excess reimbursement to the tune of Rs.3,91,485/- as feeding charges for 26 students by showing the total strength as 300 and thereby, she had committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 471, 477A IPC and Section 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by indulging into criminal misconduct in discharge of her official duties by making false accounts and false entries in the attendance registered and causing pecuniary loss to the Government. ii) On examination of witnesses and perusal of documents, the role of the petitioner came into light regarding the false entries made in the School Attendance Register in the names of fictitious students with the help of other accused. iii) Parity with the co-accused cannot be claimed by the petitioner based on the order passed by this court in Crl.O.P.No.17954 of 2022 as the discussion made by this court in the said order for quashing the proceedings against the co-accused is not relatable to the present petitioner. Moreover, the Department is in the process of filing an appeal against order passed by this court in Crl.O.P.No.17954 of 2022 even in respect of such co-accused. iv) Similarly, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the inspections done by the authorities periodically and non-mentioning of any adverse remarks against the petitioner and thereby claim that she is innocent. Moreover, the Department is in the process of filing an appeal against order passed by this court in Crl.O.P.No.17954 of 2022 even in respect of such co-accused. iv) Similarly, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the inspections done by the authorities periodically and non-mentioning of any adverse remarks against the petitioner and thereby claim that she is innocent. In fact, departmental action is recommended by the investigation officer against the officials for dereliction of duty and accordingly, departmental enqiry has been commenced against them. v) The fictitious students were examined by the investigation officer as LW8 to LW33 and their statements were recorded which would prove that they had studied in GTR Middle School, Parangintham, Cuddalore for some time alone and thereafter, they had joined other Schools and some of them had discontinued their education. The investigation officer had also examined the Headmasters/Headmistresses of the other schools where such students had continued their education during the relevant period, as witnesses 34 to 45 , which would prove that the petitioner had created false documents and committed the offence. vi) All the documentary evidence like Attendance Registers and other documents were produced before the Special Court alongwith the charge sheet and the same are taken on file in Special Case No.13 of 2022 and the case stands posted on 10.3.2023. The criminal proceedings is based on ample material both oral and documentary to prove the guilt of the accused and it is not liable to be quashed. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the criminal proceedings may be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The quashment of the criminal proceedings is sought for by the petitioner mainly on two grounds. Despite periodical inspections having been done by the authorities concerned, no adverse remarks have been made by them against the petitioner and the criminal proceedings against the co-accused have been quashed by this court in Crl.O.P.No.17954 of 2022. 8. Sofar as the non-mentioning of any adverse remarks by the authorities concerned, a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents shows that departmental action has been initiated against those officials on the recommendation of the investigation officer and thus, the omission on the part of the officials concerned to record the adverse remarks against the petitioner will, in no way help the petitioner. 9. 9. Coming to the aspect of parity claimed by the petitioner with the co-accused on the basis of the order passed by this court in Crl.O.P.No.17954 of 2022, the predominant aspect brought to the notice of this court is that process is going on to challenge the order passed by the court by way of appeal. Moreover, a careful reading of the order passed by this court in the said case would disclose that the difference in the roles played by the present petitioner/A1 and the other accused has been specifically analysed and it has also been observed that it is the duty of the Warden viz., the present petitioner to maintain Hostel Register and prepare Form Nos.7 and 8 which are primary documents in claiming the feeding charges. When there is a specific observation against the present petitioner in the said case while quashing the proceedings against the co-accused, especially, when such quashment is also being challenged, the petitioner is not entitled to parity with the co-accused to get the relief of quashment. 10. The Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) has held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 11. In the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioner is defrauding the Government in making a false claim of feeding charges in the name of fictitious students, who were neither students in the School nor staying in the hostel during the relevant period, by making false entries and falsification of accounts. The investigation officer has examined many witnesses including the students, in respect of whom, the alleged false claim has been made and submitted the entire material before the Court below and the same has been taken cognizance by the court below. When such a development has already taken place in the criminal proceedings based on sufficient material, this court does not find any rarity of circumstances in the case on hand warranting this court to interfere with the criminal proceedings by exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.