1. 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 under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya 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 (3rd respondent) 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 3rd accused spoke rudely to the Ustad of the Mosque. When CW5 attempted to intervene in the matter and stop the 3rd accused from assaulting the Ustad, the 1st accused hit CW5 on the left side of his head. When CW1 attempted to intervene in the matter and remove CW5, the 3rd accused wrongfully restrained him, and the 1st accused hit CW1 on his left eye, the 2nd accused kicked CW1 on the left side of his abdomen, the 4th accused hit CW1 on his chest and the 5th accused 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 produced along with the final report prove that all the witnesses have suffered injuries in the incident that took place on 09.08.2024. There are specific allegations attributed against each of the petitioners.

7. It is well settled that this Court has broad plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to Section 528 of the BNSS, to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report, final report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399], Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 117] and Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781]).

8. In Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) [2025 KHC 6914], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is extraordinary, but must be exercised sparingly. It is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial.

                  On an overall consideration of the facts, the law and the materials on record, and on prima facie finding that there are specific overt acts attributed against each of the petitioners, I am not convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Crl.M.C. is devoid of any merits and only liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court, including filing applications for discharge, if the charge has not been framed till date. If such applications are filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose the applications, in accordance with law, untramelled by any observations made in this order.