The court cannot use inherent powers to quash proceedings when a prima facie case exists for trial.

ORDER

The accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 in CC No.1330/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara, have filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 30.03.2017 at about 9.30 pm, the petitioners, along with some other accused, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with dangerous weapons like stones, and committed rioting by mounting physical assault upon the de facto complainant, who was there in the temple premises of Iruvaikonam temple. It is alleged that the 1st accused caught hold of the hair of the de facto complainant, uttered abusive words upon her, and wrongfully restrained her. The other accused are alleged to have uttered abusive words and pelted stones at the de facto complainant causing injuries upon her forehead. Thus, the petitioners, along with the other accused, are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 294(b), 341 and 324 IPC r/w Section 149 .

3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent, and that they have been falsely implicated in this case in connection with a dispute relating to the temple.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the present case is the offshoot of civil issues between the parties regarding the administration and management of the temple concerned, and that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. It is further argued that the offences alleged are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the wound certificate of the de facto complainant does not reveal any substantial injuries suffered by her, and hence it is apparent that she has preferred a false complaint against the petitioners.

6. On going through the Final Report and accompanying records, it is seen that the de facto complainant has got a specific case that she was caught hold of by her hair by the 1st accused and subjected to wrongful restraint at the premises of the temple at about 9.30 pm on 30.03.2017. She had also stated that the other accused assaulted her with stones, resulting in injuries upon her forehead. The wound certificate of the de facto complainant contains the indication that she had suffered abrasion upon her forehead and chest. It is true that the statement tendered by the de facto complainant and the other witnesses do not disclose the obscene words allegedly uttered by the petitioners in order to come to a finding as to whether the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC is attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also contend that there are no dangerous weapons alleged to have been used by the petitioners, and hence the offence under Section 324 is also not brought out.

7. As the matter stands now, the prosecution records would prima facie disclose that there was physical assault perpetrated upon the de facto complainant by the accused in the Crime, at about 9.30 pm on 30.03.2017, at the premises of the temple where there is civil issues between the parties with regard to the administration and management. What exactly are the offences attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, is a matter to be dealt with by the Trial Court at the time of framing of charges. At any rate, it is not possible for this Court to invoke the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to terminate the prosecution proceedings at the threshold. The learn