A distinction is maintained between 'preparation' and 'attempt' to commit a crime. Mere possession of materials for an offence, without an overt act proximate to the commission (such as lighting a match), constitutes preparation and is not punishable as an attempt under Section 511 IPC.

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/ Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No. 4 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Udhagamandalam, the Nilgiris and quash the same.

For petitioners : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz for Mr.H.Thameen Ansari

For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C.No. 4 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Udhagamandalam, the Nilgiris and to quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2021, the accused had come to the Central Bus Stand, holding an object which was made of a combustible material with kerosene smell and attempted to cause damage to the public property. Consequently, a case in Crime No.87 of 2021 was registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 435 and 511 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the final report was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No. 4 of 2025, which is now sought to be quashed.

3. Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced the following submissions:

a) mere possession of the alleged combustible material will not be enough to prove that the petitioners were either preparing to commit the offence or they attempted to commit the offence and hence, Section 435 IPC cannot be attracted;

b) the petitioners have not ignited or attempted to ignite anything, so as to cause damage or they have also not attempted to throw the combustible material on any public property and they were said to be arrested even prior to the commission of offence/the alleged attempt and hence, the offences under Sections 435 and 511 of IPC cannot be made out;

c) though the alleged offences are said to have taken place near the Central Bus Stand, no independent witness has been cited and all the witnesses are police officials; and

d) preparation for committing an offence is different from attempting to commit it and when no material is available to show that the petitioners either prepared or attempted to commit the offence, the ingredients of offences under Sections 435 and 511 of IPC cannot be made out.

4. In support of this contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgments in Malkiat Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab [(1969) 1 SCC 157] and Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of A.P. [(2004) 3 SC 602].

5. On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners sought quashment of the impugned proceedings.

6. Per contra, Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent, made the following submissions:

a) the petitioners were found in possession of a combustible material in order to cause damage to the public property; and

b) the witnesses being police officials, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent.

8. At the outset, for the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is profitable to extract Sections 435 and 511 IPC.

“435. Mischief by fire or explosive substance w