Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised cautiously, and timeliness in approaching the court is essential.

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No.

2493/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam, (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has arisen from Crime No. 1772/2015 registered by the Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that:

On 16.02.2015, at around 23:00 hours, while the de facto complainant (second respondent) was going to the house of the first petitioner to meet his wife, who is the sister of the first petitioner and cousin of the second petitioner, the petitioners used abusive language and manhandled him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marital relation between the sister of the first petitioner with the second respondent is strained. There are matrimonial proceedings pending before various courts. It is only as the counterblast to the above proceedings that the second respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners. Even if the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report are taken on their face value, the same will not constitute the offences charged against the petitioners.

Therefore, the Crl.M.C. may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners in Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report, which proves the petitioners’ culpability in the crime. Even though Annexure A2 final report was filed on 22.08.2015, the Crl.M.C has only been filed on 10.03.2020, which is nearly after five years. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the Crl.M.C. Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had wrongfully restrained the second respondent and abused him with filthy language and thereafter, caused hurt to him.

7. 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] and Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781] ).

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also consistently cautioned that High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, should not embark upon a "minitrial" or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of the Trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the FIR/complaint and accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. (Read the decisions in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madal Lal Kapoor