The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal charges must be supported by evidence and must align with the actions of the accused. The court emphasized that unsubstantiated charges can amount to an abuse of process of the court.

The prayers in this Crl.M.C. are as follows:

"....... to call for the records relating to Annexure 1 charge sheet in C.C.No. 155/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry and to quash the same as against the petitioners or to pass such other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice."

2. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Calendar Case, C.C.No.155/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Changanacherry. Accused No.1 is the father of the petitioners. Interestingly, the 1st petitioner is the sister of the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that the 1st petitioner (A-2) has completed her course in Chartered Accountancy and that she intends to travel abroad to join her husband. More interestingly, the defacto complainant is the brother of the father of the petitioners. The impugned final report/charge sheet, which led to the institution of C.C.No.155/2012 was filed on the basis of Crime No.47/2012 of Vakathanam Police Station, registered at the instance of the defacto complainant for offences under Secs.447, 341, 506(ii), 294(b), 188 read with Sec.34 of the I.P.C. The first allegation in the impugned final report/charge sheet is that the accused trespassed into the property comprised in Resurvey No.265/2 of Thottackadu village belonging to the wife of the defacto complainant and further that the 1st accused had wrongly restrained the defacto complainant and used obscene words and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant showing a chopper and that accused Nos.2 & 3 measured the land. It is further alleged that the accused had done the above act in furtherance of their common intention. It is also alleged that the accused had done the above act, when an injunction order restraining the 1st accused from trespassing into the above property was in force. It is common ground that the learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.294 (b) and that he has taken cognizance only for offences under Secs.447, 341, 506(ii), 188 and 34 of the I.P.C. It is interesting to note that in the impugned Anx.1 final report/charge sheet neither the time of the alleged occurrence of the incident nor the date is shown. But from the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, it can be seen that the offence alleged to have been committed was on 24.1.2012. It is these impugned criminal proceedings that is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

3. Heard Sri. M.J. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent State of Kerala and Smt. Anil Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. It can be seen that the impugned Crime No.47.2012 of Vakathanam Police Station was registered on the basis of Anx.2 complaint on Crl.M.P.No.324/2012 filed by the defacto complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. Though the alleged occurrence is said to be on 24.1.2012, Anx.2 is seen filed only on 4.2.2012. The reason for the delay is not seen explained in Anx.2. It is on basis of the directions issued under Sec.156(3) by the learned Magistrate, that Anx.3 Crime No.47/2012 of Vakathanam Police Station was registered.

5. Anxs.4, 5 and 6 are the Sec.162 statements recorded from the charge witnesses, CW-2, CW-3 and C-4 respectively. Whether any serious offences are made out, even if the versions in Anxs.4, 5 & 6 statements of charge witnesses 2 to 4 are assumed to be true, is to be examined by this Court. The statements of CWs 2 and 4 would show that at about 11 a.m., A-1, the father of accused 2 and 3 (petitioners), came to the property in question and stood in front of the defacto complainant and that he is said to have criminally intimidated his brother. As per the statements of these witnesses, it is stated that the people, who had assembled there were disbursed by A-1 to go his house. The witnesses would further state that in the afternoon, A-1 alone came t