ORDER : This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Perambalur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120B , 147, 149, 364 , 386 of IPC in Crime No.605 of 2023, as against this petitioner. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 viz., Alagiri is a life convict, A5 is the wife of A1, she is doing Real Estate Business, when she approached the defacto complainant for purchasing 50 cents of land situated behind the Dhanalakshmi Srinivasa College, Thruraiyur, Perambalur Road and the consideration was fixed as Rs.43,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as an advance to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, A2 asked the defacto complainant to give the very same land by minimizing the sale consideration. But the defacto complainant did not accede to the same. Therefore, A4 was engaged to kidnap and threatened the defacto complainant as per the instructions of A2, A3 and A5 and demanded a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. On the life threat, the defacto complainant gave a sum of 1,00,000/- to A3 and Rs.2,00,000/- each, to A2 and A4 on 11.04.2023. The accused used the said amount for the purpose of murdering one Abdul Rehman. After committing the same, A2, A3 and A4 demanded another Rs.2,00,000/- to the defacto complainant. On 08.06.2023, the defacto complainant again gave Rs.1,00,000/- to A3. Since the petitioner was confined in connection with the murder, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint on 08.08.2023 against A1 to A5 and after completing the investigation, the final report was filed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the defacto complainant and the petitioner are close friends and he has also filed photographs taken during the course of birthday celebration on 26.04.2023 and facebook post dated 21.04.2023 and the said photographs show that the petitioner did not involve in the crime that took place on 11.04.2023. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No 605 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147 , 149, 364 , 386 and 120B of IPC , as against the petitioner and others and the same has been taken cognizance in PRC. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No 605 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147 , 149, 364 , 386 and 120B of IPC , as against the petitioner and others and the same has been taken cognizance in PRC. No.27 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur District. Hence he prayed to quash the same. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1 st respondent police would submit that the petitioner along with other accused kidnapped and threatened the defacto complainant and demanded money. Hence, on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No 605 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147 , 149, 364 , 386 and 120B of IPC , as against the petitioner and others. Now charge sheet has been filed in PRC. No.27 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur District and the same is pending for committal. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No 605 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147 , 149, 364 , 386 and 120B of IPC , as against the petitioner and others. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in PRC. No.27 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and recorded a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna , (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M. JayanthiVs. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, 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 consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 10. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in PRC. No.27 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Perambalur. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in PRC. No.27 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Perambalur. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial as early as possible. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.