The High Court correctly found prima facie evidence against the accused, emphasizing caution in invoking Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 13th accused in S.C. No.

434/2024 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha, which has originated from Crime No. 1297/2016 registered by the Mararikulam Police Station, Alappuzha District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 342 , 323, 324, 395 and 506(ii), 120B, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 .

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that:

The accused persons, of whom accused 1 to 4 have prior criminal antecedents, made necessary preparations with the intention to commit theft from CW1 and CW2. Accordingly, on 20.11.2016, at around 22:10 hours, under the guise of an old-to-new currency exchange for a marriage, the 2nd accused, acting in concert with the other accused, took CW1 to an enclosed room where the 3rd accused kicked him, the 4th accused struck him on the head, the 7th accused hit him in the left ear, the 5th accused attempted to assault him with an iron pipe and the 3rd accused also threatened him with a gun and forced him to call CW2 to bring the money. On CW2’s arrival, the accused used physical violence, broke a liquor bottle, and made death threats and overpowered the victims, and robbed them of ₹6.5 lakhs in cash, and a bag containing CW2's chequebook, passbook, and Aadhaar card. Furthermore, accused 13 and 16, in order to protect and hide accused 1, 2, and 7, provided a car with registration no. KL 56 K 3042, while accused 15 and 16 helped accused 1 and 2 to hide them after the commission of the crime.

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 Annexures A1 FIR and Annexure A3 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offences alleged against him. Actually, the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. The Investigating Officer has mechanically conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The final report is against the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335]. In any given case, there is no material to convict the petitioner of the above offences. Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl. M.C. She draws the attention of this Court to Column No. 16 of the Annexure A3 final report. She also states that the prosecution has cited 38 witnesses to substantiate the prosecution’s case. There are specific allegations against the petitioner in Annexure A3 final report. The question whether the petitioner has culpability in the crime is a matter to be considered in trial. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution case, in essence, is that the petitioner had harboured the accused 1, 2 and 7 by permitting them to flee from the scene of occurrence. 7. It is well settled 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, t