AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.1574/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.618/2023 registered by the Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners have filed this petition to quash the First Information Report and Final Report on the assertion that, even if the allegations in the above documents are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. There is no material to prove the petitioners' culpability in the crime. The essential ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out. Therefore, even if the petitioners withstand the trial, it is not going to lead to their conviction. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed.
The substratum of the prosecution case is that: On 09.05.2023, at around 17:30 hours, when the 2nd respondent (Station House Officer, Vellarada Police Station) reached Keezhumuttoor in connection with an enquiry relating to a petition received from the Vellarada Grama Panchayat, and he instructed certain hollow bricks to be removed from the site, the petitioners had questioned his authority and obstructed him from discharging his duties. The 1st petitioner abused him in obscene language and the 2nd petitioner assaulted him by striking on his left hand, pushing him down on the ground and scratched him on his body. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner struck him on his back and caused injuries to him. Thus, the petitioners have committed the above offences.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even if the allegations in the First Information Report and the Final Report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners are falsely implicated in the crime at the instance of the 2nd respondent. There is no material to prove that the petitioners have committed the above offences. Hence, the proceedings may be quashed.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the petition. He submits that there are specific allegations in the First Information Report and the Final Report, which prove the culpability of the petitioners in the crime. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
The crux of the prosecution case is that, the petitioners had wrongfully restrained the 2nd respondent and deterred him from discharging his official duties. Thereafter, they have abused him in obscene language and also physically assaulted the 2nd respondent.
I have carefully gone through the allegations in the First Information Report and the Final Report and prima facie find that there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioners. The contentions that have been raised in this petition are all disputed questions of fact, which can only be decided at the time of trial and not in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
It is well settled that this Court has inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the First Information Report, Final Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399], Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 117] and Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781]).
In Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) [2025 KHC 6914], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extraordinary, but must be exercised sparingly. It is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial.
After bestowing my anxious consideration of the facts, the materials on record, the law on the point and the rival submissions made across the Bar, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS.
This petition is devoid of any merits and consequently dismissed. Nonetheless, it is made clear that it will be upto the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court, including filing an application for discharge, provided the charge has not been framed till date. If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the application, in accordance with law, untramelled by any observation made in this order.