ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 of B.N.S.S., seeking orders, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.162 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil and quash the same is so far as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there arose dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant with regard to the compound wall; that on 17.08.2011 at about 09.00 am, the petitioners and others had attaked the defacto complainant with wooden log and caused criminal intimidation.

3.On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.272 of 2011 for the alleged offences under Sections 323 and 506(ii) IPC and after completing the investigation, final report came to be filed and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.162 of 2012 and the same is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.

4.The main contention of the petitioners is that the FIR as well as the charge sheet does not attract the offence, with which the petitioners were charged; that there are no specific allegations and that there are no incrimiating materials/evidences against the petitioners to constitute the alleged offences.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant sustained injury and was taking inpatient treatment in the hospital and that they have taken a statement from the Medical Officer, who had treated the defacto complainant. He would further submit that NBW is pending as against the second accused.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has enumerated 7 categories of cases, where the power can be exercised under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same are extracted hereunder:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar e