The court must not conduct a mini-trial when determining the sufficiency of evidence for charges at the stage of quashing criminal proceedings.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the fourth accused in C.C. No.

359/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavara, which has arisen from Crime No. 352/2025 registered by the Chavara Police Station, Kollam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 351(1) and 121(1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that:

On 6.02.2025, at around 21:30 hours, PWs 2 to

7, headed by PW1, officers of the Excise Department, while conducting a surprise check, were wrongfully restrained by accused 1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention, and the accused 1 and 2 attacked PW1, the accused 1 and 3 uttered obscene words at PWs 2 to 7, and the fourth accused pushed and hit PWs 2 to 7. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure A4 FIR and Annexure A5 Charge Sheet are taken on their face value, the same will not constitute the offences charged against the petitioner. The allegations in Annexures A4 and A5 are fabricated and concocted. Actually, on 06.02.2025, at around 19:00 p.m, while the petitioner was standing near a boat jetty, a jeep with certain persons in plain clothes arrived at the spot and conducted a body search of the petitioner. However, they did not recover any contraband. Nonetheless, the Detecting Officer has falsely implicated the petitioner as an accused. The entire procedure leading to the arrest of the petitioner and implicating him as an accused is vitiated and illegal.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. There are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner in Annexure A4 FIR and Annexure A5 charge sheet. A co-joint reading of the documents undoubtedly reveals the petitioner’s involvement. Whether it was necessary for the search party to be in uniform, and if they were in plain clothes, etc., are matters to be decided after a trial. In any given case, this Court may not embark upon a mini trial to decide if the petitioner has committed the above offences. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The specific case of the prosecution is that, on

06.02.2025, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, had, in furtherance of their common intention, deterred the PWs 1 to 7 from discharging their official duties. The accused also abused the officers in abusive language and thus committed the above offences.

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 [