Inherent powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are exercised cautiously, especially when allegations prima facie attract offences.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.T. No.

3002/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No. 90/2018 registered by the Traffic Police Station, Kottayam District, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code , Sections 122 and 127 read with Section 201 and Section 179 of the Motor Vehicle Act , and Sections 345 and 129 read with Section

177 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.

2. The petitioner has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash all further proceedings in Annexure A1 final report.

3. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that;

On 12.01.2018, at around 09:50 hours, the petitioner had ridden the motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-5-Q 3107 without wearing a helmet, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life from R.R. Junction. When the defacto complainant directed the petitioner to stop the vehicle, he ignored the instructions, in an arrogant manner and proceeded with the vehicle without stopping the same. Subsequently, the vehicle had stopped in the middle of the road, causing traffic obstruction to pedestrians and other vehicles.

Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offences.

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 Annexure A1 final report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. Even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.

M.C. He submits that the crime was registered in the year 2018. The trial in the case has progressed and has now reached Sec.313 Cr.P.C. stage. It is after seven years that the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the proceedings. There are no bonafides in the Crl.M.C. If the allegations in Annexure A1 are taken on their face value, it will attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The essence of the prosecution case against the petitioner is that he drove a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without a helmet, and he refused to follow the instructions of the defacto complainant by not stopping the vehicle at the signal. Subsequently, the vehicle had stopped in a busy junction and caused obstructions to pedestrians and other vehicles.

7. Indisputably, a reading of the allegations in Annexure A1 final report clearly attracts the offences alleged against the petitioner. Moreover, though the FIR was registered as early as 12.01.2018, it is after an inordinate delay of seven years that the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the proceedings when the case is at the fag end of the trial. There is no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Though the delay is per se not a bar to entertain a Crl.M.C, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers at this stage and quash the proceedings, especially when the trial is at its fag end. Moreover, prima facie, if the allegations are taken on their face value; the same would attract the offences alleged against the petitioner.

8. It is well-established that this Court has inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. However, such