1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings pending in S.C. No. 33 of 2017, on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Salem.

2. It is seen from records that the 1st respondent Police has filed a Final Report against the petitioners for an offence under Sections 294 (b), 307, 506 (ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act [hereinafter referred as 'the Act"], and the same has been taken cognizance by the Court below. The case of the prosecution is that there is a land dispute pending between the family of the Complainant and the family of the accused. While so, on 04.05.2016, at about 11.15 p.m., when the de-facto Complainant was in her house, A-1 entered into a quarrel with her and also threatened and abused her in a filthy language. He also attempted to stab the 2nd respondent with a knife and the 2nd respondent escaped from the attack by moving away and she sustained a simple injury in her right hand. It is a further case of the prosecution that A-2 and A-3 also attacked the de-facto Complainant. Thereafter, the de-facto Complainant locked herself inside the house. A Complaint was given by the 2nd respondent on 05.05.2016 at about 12.30 a.m., and the respondent Police registered an FIR against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the de-facto Complainant's husband had come with henchmen and had created a ruckus in a temple festival and the respondent Police had registered an FIR in Cr. No. 194 of 2016 against the husband of the 2nd respondent and 3 others and they have also been arrested. Keeping this in mind, a false Complaint has been given by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the entire Complaint is attended with malafides.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the entire reading of the Complaint, the Final Report and the statement given by the witnesses, reveals the fact that the de-facto Complainant sustained a simple injury in the right hand and the so-called knife was not even recovered or seized by the Police in the course of investigation and therefore, the version of prosecution that the de-facto Complainant was attacked with a knife is a total falsehood. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that no offence has been made out under Section 307 of IPC. The learned counsel would further submit that no offence under Section 294 (b) has been made out, since the incident had taken place in the house of the 2nd respondent, and not in a public place. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 4 of the Act is also attracted in this case, since the alleged incident did not take place in public view, but inside the house of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the proceedings before the Court below is liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are prima facie materials against the petitioners for the Court below to frame charges and proceed further with the trial and at this stage, this Court should not interfere with the proceedings. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioners are factual in nature and the same has to be established only in the course of proceedings, since it involves appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for a dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners to frame charges under Sections 294 (b), 307, 506 (ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Act.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. This Court has carefully gone through the allegations made in the Final Report as well as the statements given by the witnesses. It i