The judgment establishes that higher courts should refrain from quashing proceedings without a trial unless no charge exists, reinforcing the authority of trial courts.

ORDER

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.8 and 9, in C.C.

No.834 of 2022, on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Muvattupuzha. In the said case, they are facing prosecution for having committed the offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 406, read with Section 34 of the IPC .

2. The prosecution allegation is that the first accused in the aforesaid case entered into a criminal conspiracy with the rest of the accused to defraud CW1 to CW21 and persuaded them to transfer amounts by assuring that they would be provided with jobs in foreign countries. It is alleged that the accused, in pursuance to the said conspiracy, took the victims to various South East Asian countries on visiting VISA and failed to provide them with a job as assured.

3. According to the petitioners, though the crime was registered based on the information furnished by one Joby M Mohan, in the course of the investigation, it has come out that he is the prime accused. The petitioners state that going by the final report laid in the instant case, there is not even a whisper of an allegation connecting the petitioners herein with the crime committed by the 1st accused. They contend that the charge against the petitioners is groundless and permitting the prosecution to continue the investigation would result in abuse of process. The learned counsel would refer to the law laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd V State of Maharashtra and Others1 and submit that this is a fit case wherein this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.

4. In response, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the final report has already been laid, and the matter is now pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not liable to be entertained as the petitioners herein have an inviolable right to raise their contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of framing charge, and if the learned Magistrate considered the charge be groundless, he is empowered to discharge the accused.

5. I have considered the rival contentions advanced. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, wherein it has been held that the inherent powers conferred upon the

12021 SCC Online SC 315 High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide enough to encompass almost all situations in order to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

6. The question, however, is when and under what situation the High Court should step in and pass appropriate orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in a criminal trial. In this context, it will be relevant to remind oneself of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. It has been held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry into whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether, on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without a full-fledged enquiry. Though the High Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles, and the inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is also settled that, if on taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, no offence was made out, then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of i