The court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings when allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense, especially when the complainant retracts the accusations.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 361/2025 registered by the Kozhikode Town Police Station, Kozhikode District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 336 (2), 337 and 340(2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash Annexure 1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No. 361/2025 on the assertion that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken on their face value, the same would not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners.

3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the second respondent had filed O.P.(M.V) No. 2424/2023 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (‘Tribunal’ for short), on 13.09.2023, claiming compensation of Rs. 6/- lakh for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. Subsequently, on 01.04.2024, the second respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed O.P.(M.V) No. 606/2024. He then stated that he had not entrusted the petitioners to file a claim petition on his behalf. He denied his signature in the claim petition, vakalat and the affidavit filed in the claim petition. Accordingly, the first respondent, on behalf of the Tribunal, has filed the present FIR alleging that the petitioners have committed the above offences.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the second respondent (the injured in two claim petitions).

5. The second respondent has filed the affidavit, emphatically stating that he had given a wrong statement to the first respondent, which led to the registration of the crime. Actually, the second respondent had consulted the petitioners to file his claim petition before the Tribunal. Subsequently, he also engaged another counsel to file the claim petition. He was under the bonafide belief that the petitioners have not filed the claim petition. Only when the notice was issued from the Tribunal, the second respondent learnt that the petitioners had filed the claim petition. The second respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners, who have not wilfully created any documents for the purpose of cheating him. The second respondent has no objection to the entire proceedings being quashed.

6. Annexure 1 FIR was filed by the first respondent (Sheristadar of the Tribunal) at the instance of the second respondent, who initially alleged that the petitioners had filed the claim petition without his consent or knowledge, and by forging his signature and fabricating the documents. Now, he has taken a volte-face and deposed in his affidavit that it was on a mistaken belief that he made the above assertion to the first respondent. Presently, he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.

7. Taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the second respondent (the actual victim in the crime), that he had wrongly given the complaint to the first respondent on a mistaken belief that the petitioners had cheated him, I am of the definite view that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR, even if taken on their face value, will not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. It was on a wrong notion of the second respondent that the crime happened to be registered. Furthermore, even if the petitioners withstand the ordeal of trial, it is not going to lead to conviction. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise for the petitioners to withstand the trial, especially in view of the turn of events and the present stand of the second respondent. Also, other than for the second respondent, no other person can has a grievance against the petitioners. Thus