The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is limited and must respect the trial court's domain regarding evidence and facts.

ORDER

The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.674/2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate,(‘Trial Court’ for short) Neyyatinkara, which has originated from Crime No. 1546/2020 registered by the Aryancode Police Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections

323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The crux of the prosection case is that, on

27.09.2020, the accused had attacked the 2^nd respondent (defacto complainant - injured) with an iron rod and caused him grevious injury.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure I Final Report are taken on their face value, the same will not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. Annexure 3 wound certificate undoubtedly reveals that the 2nd respondent had not suffered any serious injuries so as to attract the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to result in a conviction, and the trial would be a futile exercise. Hence, the Annexure 1 Final Report may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that there is a specific overt act attributed against the petitioner, that he hit the 2^nd respondent with an iron rod and caused grevious injuries to him. Annexure 3 Accident cum Wound Certificate clearly reveals that the 2nd respondent had suffered grevious hurt. Moreover, these are all matters that are raised in the Crl.M.C are the matters that have to be considered by the Trial Court. This Court may not conduct a mini-trial and conclude that the petitioner has not committed the above offences. Hence the Crl. M.C may be dismissed.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and assualted with an iron rod and caused grevious injuries to him.

7. The reading of Annexure A1 Final Report explicitly reveal that there are specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner. The treatment records also corroborates with the allegation. Now whether the injured suffered injuries due to the alleged incident, is a matter that can only be considered after trial. 8. It is trite law 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 FIR, the final 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 ]).

9. 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 ingredien