The inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC is meant to prevent abuse of process and should be exercised sparingly when no prima facie case is evident.

O R D E R

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.1922/2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla (for short, ‘Trial Court’) which has been arisen from Crime No.2159/2016 registered by the Thiruvalla Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution allegation, in essence, is that;

the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the defacto complainant (3^rd respondent) had received Rs.8,80,000/- for investment purposes. However, the accused persons failed to give her any returns and refused to return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 First Information Report and Annexure A2 Final Report are taken on their face value, the same will not constitute the offences charged against the petitioner. The petitioner was not a Director of the Company named ‘Infinity Realcon Limited. It was the 1^st accused who was the Director. It was the petitioner’s wife who was an employee of the said Company. The entire amount was credited to the account of the 1^st accused. There are no materials to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it would not lead to a conviction. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. She submits that there is a specific overt act attributed against the petitioner in Annexure A2 Final Report, wherein it is specially stated that the petitioner along with the 1^st accused had cheated the defacto complainant. There is no material to prove that the petitioner was not in charge of the affairs of the Company. The grounds that have been raised are matters to be decided by the Trial Court. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner along with the 1^st accused, with an intention to cheat the 3^rd respondent, had received Rs.8,80,000/- from her on the assurance of giving her good profit on the investment. However, the accused persons did not give any profit on the investment and refused to return the capital.

7. The sheet anchor of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner was not in charge of the management or administration of the Company, wherein the 1^st accused was the Managing Director. It is only the petitioner’s wife who was an employee of the said Company.

8. It is well-established that this Court has broad plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions inState of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399] ,Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 117] an