The court emphasized its inherent power to quash proceedings when allegations are inconsistent and appear intended to harass, providing a guideline for the application of Section 482 of the CrPC.

ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.No.232/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thrissur (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.605/2022 registered by the Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur, on the basis of Annexure A1 FIR and private complaint filed by the second respondent alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section s 447 , 341, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’, for short). However, the Investigating Officer has filed Annexure A2 final report, alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 341 of the .

2. The case of the second respondent in Annexure A1 FIR and the private complaint, in essence, is that: on 23.12.2021, at around 9:00 hours, the accused (petitioner) trespassed into the property of the second respondent with the intention to destroy the second respondent’s property and attempted to tie a wire fence. When the second respondent prevented the accused from putting up the wire fence, the accused intimidated the defacto complainant and threatened to kill him. The accused also pressed and squeezed the defacto complainant’s hands and wrongfully restrained him.

Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that, even if the allegations in the FIR, private complaint and final report are taken on their face value, the same would not constitute the offence under Section 341 of the IPC . The very fact that the alleged incident occurred on 23.12.2021, but the FIR was registered only on 11.08.2022, that too on the basis of a private complaint, proves the falsity and frivolity in the present crime. Even prior to the registration of the FIR, the second respondent had filed O.S. No. 165/2022 (Annexure A3) before the Court of the Munsiff, Thrissur, for a decree of prohibitory injunction. In the said suit, the second respondent has candidly admitted that the alleged incident occurred on 01.12.2021. However, there are totally different allegations imputed in the FIR and private complaint. The second respondent's sole intention is to harass and pressurise the petitioner to yield to his unlawful demands. The oblique intention of the second respondent is to drag the petitioner unnecessarily before the criminal court. In view of the frivolity of the crime, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submit that, if the allegations in the FIR, private complaint and final report are taken on their face value, the same would constitute the offence under Section 341 IPC . The second respondent has specifically stated in the private complaint the reason for the delay in lodging the FIR. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and conclude that the offence is not attracted. The contentions raised in the Crl.M.C are all matters to be decided by the Trial Court. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had trespassed into the property of the second respondent, attempted to destroy the property and put up a wire fence. When the second respondent prevented the petitioner’s attempt, he wrongfully restrained the second respondent.

7. In the private complaint, the second respondent has stated that the alleged incident took place on 24.12.2021. However, in the FIR, it is mentioned that the alleged incident took place on 23.12.2021 at around 9:00 hours. Be that as it may, the FIR was registered on 11.08.2022, on the basis of the private complai