The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and the proceedings can only be quashed if the uncontroverted allegations in the final report do not make out any offense.

Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.1546/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. Petitioner seeks to quash the said proceedings through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. According to the prosecution, on 06.10.2018 at 10 a.m., accused 3 to 6 had, on the instructions of the first and second accused, trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and demolished the compound wall, causing a damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. Sri.Kodoth Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that during the relevant time the petitioner was not in the country, as is evidenced by the endorsement in the passport, and further that Section 34 of IPC requires the active participation of the accused with a prior meeting of minds. According to the learned counsel, none of those ingredients were present in the instant case, and therefore, prosecution against the petitioner ought to be quashed.

4. Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is a matter which has to be considered during trial and even the question of active participation of the petitioner in the instant case and whether there was a prior meeting of minds between the accused are all factors which will have to be considered after evidence is adduced.

5. The nature of allegations as evident from the final report indicate that specific overt acts are alleged against accused 3 to 6 while the petitioner and the second accused are alleged to have instructed the said accused to indulge in the criminal activity. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, a plea of alibi, is a matter which will have to be established during trial as held in the decision in Khalid v. State of Kerala 2024 (2) KHC 441 , and therefore, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings at this stage on the basis of the plea of alibi.

6. Even the question whether there was any active participation and meeting of minds between the accused to rope in the petitioner as an accused, is a matter which can be considered only after trial.

7. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C being very limited and unless the uncontroverted allegations in the final report if taken on its face value does not make out any offence, can the remedy be invoked. Since the allegations in the final report, if uncontroverted make out the offences alleged, I find no merit in the Crl.M.C. and it is dismissed.