The inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, especially where allegations disclose a prima facie case.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.598/2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from the Crime No.342/2007 registered by the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 451 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘ IPC ’).

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 28.05.2007, while defacto complainant, the Circle Inspector of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, was questioning the accused in Crime No.151/2007 of the Cheranellur Police Station, Ernakulam and the petitioner obstructed the Investigating Officer from carrying on his official duty. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. Moreover, since, there is no allegation that the petitioner used force to prevent the Station House Officer from questioning the accused in Crime No.151/2007, the offence under Section 353 of the IPC will not be attracted. In fact, the petitioner is lawyer by profession. He had gone to the police station only to ascertain the reason why the accused in Crime No.151/2007 were being questioned by the the Station House Officer. The entire prosecution is mala fide, and registered with an intention to harass the petitioner. Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. She submits that the crime was registered in 2007. The final report was filed in 2018, it is after seven long years that the present Crl.M.C has been filed.

Moreover, there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner in the FIR as well as the final report. The trial in the case has commenced and the case is posted for recalling and re-examining PWs1 and 4. It is at this belated stage, that the petitioner has approached this Court, with the sole intention to stall the prosecution. There is no bona fides in the Crl.M.C.

Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. The essence of the prosecution case is that, while the Station House Officer of Ernakulam Town North Police Station was questioning the accused in another crime registered by the Cheranellur Police Station, the petitioner barged with police station and prevented the Station House Officer from questioning the accused.

7. When the Crl.M.C came up for consideration on 20.01.2026, this Court had called for a report from the Trial Court to ascertain the position and the reasonable time period required to dispose of the case. Pursuant to the above order, the Trial Court, by communication dated 23.01.2026, has informed this Court that the PW6 was cross-examined on 19.11.2024, and the case was posted for judgment. But, since the petitioner was absent, the judgment could not be pronounced. Consequently, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him and steps under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C was initiated. It is only on 06.12.2025 the petitioner surrendered and produced the order in Crl.M.C No.10953/2025 dated 04.12.2025 of this Court, whereby the petitioner was released on bail on the same day. Immediately, on the same day itself, the counsel appearing for the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall PWs 1 and 4. The application is posted for objection and hearing. On 20.01.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed one more month for hearing Section 311 petit