The court emphasized the necessity for trials where allegations are deemed serious and supported by evidence, despite the accused's claims of concocted charges.

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.527 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kothamangalam ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.554 of 2024 registered by the Pothanikad Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable underSections 296(b), 115(2) and 126(2) read withSection 3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023('BNSS, in short).

2. The gravamen of the prosecution in Annexure A1 final report is that, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, being aggrieved by the defacto complainant's (3rdrespondent) opposition to the Pazhambilli Family's demand to administer and manage the Madiyoor Mosque and with the intention to cause hurt to CW1, on 09.08.2024, at approximately 13.15 hours, while the prayers were going on in the Mosque, the 3rdaccused spoke rudely to the Ustad of the Mosque. When CW5 attempted to intervene in the matter and stop the 3rdaccused from assaulting the Ustad, the 1staccused hit CW5 on the left side of his head. When CW1 attempted to intervene in the matter and remove CW5, the 3rdaccused wrongfully restrained him, and the 1staccused hit CW1 on his left eye, the 2ndaccused kicked CW1 on the left side of his abdomen, the 4thaccused hit CW1 on his chest and the 5thaccused slapped on his left cheek. In the above incident, accused Nos.1 to 7 caused hurt to CWs.1, 2, 5 and 6. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argues that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. A reading of the wound certificate produced along with Annexure A1 final report establishes that none of the injured had suffered any injuries. The incident that has been mentioned in the wound certificate does not corroborate the prosecution allegations. Likewise, accused Nos.1 to 5 named in the FIR and the final report are not the same persons. There is a totally contradictory case built up in Annexure A1 final report. The entire prosecution case is a concocted, with the sole intention to implicate the petitioners as accused in the crime. Even if the petitioners face the trial, it will not lead to their conviction. Therefore, Annexure A1 final report may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that, if the allegations in Annexure A1 final report are taken on their face value, the same would obviously constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners. There are specific overt acts attributed against each of the petitioners, which proves their culpability in the crime. The medical records of the injured also show that all of them suffered hurt. The prosecution proposes to examine the eye-witnesses and has documentary evidence to prove the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. Although the final report was filed on 13.10.2024, it is after 1½ years that the petitioners have chosen to file this Crl.M.C., which by itself substantiates the hollowness in the case. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and come to a conclusion that the accused are not involved in the case. Therefore, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The specific case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained CW5 and assaulted him. When CWs.1, 2 and 6 attempted to intervene in the matter, they were also assaulted in the incident. Prima facie, the wound certificates produc