1. The petitioner, who purchased certain extent of land from the nd respondent and others, has approached this Court with this petition to quash the final report filed against him in Crime No. 857/2012 of Kannamali Police Station.

2. The facts required for disposal of this petition in brief are as follows: The 2nd respondent and her relatives had an extent of 2.29 Ares of land in Kumbalangi Village. On 17.9.2012 after receiving the sale consideration transferred the entire property to this petitioner by executing sale deed No. 4157/2012. They have handed over the ownership and possession of the property on the very same day to this petitioner. The property was owned by 11 persons and they together had executed document No.4155/2012 on 17.9.2012. On 19.10.2012 the 2nd respondent preferred Annexure-III complaint against the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, Fort Kochi Police Station alleging that the petitioner had trespassed into her residence on 29.9.2012 and insulted her by calling her caste name. On the basis of the complaint, Annexure-IV FIR was registered as Crime No.857/2012. In fact, there is no allegation against this petitioner to attract an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') and hence Annexure-I, the final report filed against him in CP No. 1/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi is liable to be quashed after setting aside Annexure III complaint and Annexure-IV FIR.

3. Heard Sri. Praveen K. Joy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients so as to attract an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. Moreover, the alleged trespass was on 29.9.2012. In fact, the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was executed and registered on 17.9.2012 and possession was also handed over to the petitioner. So he is the owner in possession of the property and hence there can be no trespass. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is only a shareholder out of the eleven co-owners of the property who executed the document in his favour. It is not the private or exclusive property of the 2nd respondent and in short the ingredients to attract the alleged offence are not discernible from the complaint filed against him and hence this is a fit case for quashing the final report, to meet the ends of justice.

5. The proposition of law pertaining to the statutory power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled that, it cannot be exercised as a matter of course but it has to be exercised judiciously, sparingly with great caution and care, to prevent abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice.

6. Bearing in mind the legal proposition of law as enunciated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466], Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another (2018)1 SCC(Cr) 1 etc whether the case on hand persuade this Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is the question to be looked into.

7. The 2nd respondent had admittedly sold her property along with the other 10 co-owners to this petitioner by executing sale deed No. 4155/2012 on 17.9.2012. Annexure-II is the copy of the sale deed. According to the petitioner, on the date of execution of the sale deed itself the possession of the property was handed over to him. The recitals of the sale deed also indicate the same. So he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property as per the sale deed. Annexure III is the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent on 19.10.2012 before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Fort Kochi alleging that o