1. This is a petition filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A final report in Crime No.175/2012 of Chottanikkara Police Station, which was registered for offences punishable u/s.188 IPC and u/s.30 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short), pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery as C.C.No.1494/2012, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. Petitioners are accused Nos.5 to 11 in Crime No.175/2012 of Chottanikkara Police Station, which was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara for violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2000. Petitioners contended that mandatory provisions were not complied in this case and if trial is proceeded, it amounts to a mere abuse of the process of Court.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 30.5.2012 at about 8.45 a.m, while the Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara, was on patrol duty, he found that the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.269/5 in Block No.2 of Kurikkad village, which includes a paddy land as per the revenue records, was converted illegally. There is a prohibition u/s.3 of the Act for conversion of wet land and paddy land and petitioners, who are the owners of the property, ignoring that prohibition, converted the land for other purposes. Immediately, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara registered the above crime and after completing investigation, he filed a final report in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court with this petition.

3. The inherent power contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only to prevent “abuse of the process” of any court or to secure “the ends of justice”. In a case when FIR was registered and the investigation is in progress, it is the responsibility of the Court to consider the face value which constitutes a prima facie case with regard to the allegation. If the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable and there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, the inherent power has to be exercised. The inherent jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the Section itself. Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held as follows:

“(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2). (5) Where the allegations 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 Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, 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 o