The court dismissed the petition to quash charges, affirming prosecution's validity under IPC provisions.

ORDER

Dated : 25^th November, 2025 The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.336/2023 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, facing charges under Sections 294 (b), 323, 341, 354, 447 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, who is not a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, due to his enmity towards Cws1 and 2, as there is property dispute between them, with the knowledge that they are members of the scheduled caste community, on 17.3.2023 at about 2.45 pm trespassed into the sit-out of their residence, twisted the hands of CW2, the 102 year old mother of CW1 and pulled her down into the courtyard of the house and when CW1 intervened, he abused her in filthy words, wrongfully restrained her holding on her hair, caught hold on her neck, hit on the backside of her chest, outraged her modesty and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a false, frivolous and vexatious case foisted against him, due to the pendency of the civil case and therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against him.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

5. It is true that there is a civil suit pending between the parties.

On the date of the alleged incident, two dry rubber trees standing in the disputed property was cut down by the workers of CW1. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case is an abuse of the process of the Court, as it is filed to wreck vengeance against the petitioner. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others , AIR 1992 SC 604 , in support of his argument. In the above decision, in paragraph 104 the Apex Court held that :

104. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chap.XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.226 or the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as conte