This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-I FIR and Annexure-3 final report in Crime No.269/2010 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, which was registered for offence punishable u/ss.457 and 379 r/w. 34 IPC. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in the above crime. On the basis of a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent, who is the Secretary of Neyyattinkara Municipality, Neyyattinkara Police registered the above crime. The petitioner contended that the alleged property belongs to Sreekandan Sastha Temple Trust, Vadaode. The Panchayat encroached upon 10 cents of land belonging to the temple trust. Against that encroachment, the temple trust had filed W.P.(C) No.26014/2009 before this Court, in which, a direction was given to the trust to approach the Civil Court for proper remedies. The Municipality has no possession over the disputed property. The above complaint was filed against the petitioner and others without any bona fide. If trial is proceeded, it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court.
2. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused in Crime No.269/2010 of Neyyattinkara Police Station was that on 22.2.2010 at about 1.30 p.m., the accused in the above case trespassed into the property and stolen 3500 Kgs iron rods, which were kept in the property for construction of Krishi Bhavan. On the basis of information, Neyyattinkara Police registered the above crime and after completing investigation, they filed Annexure-3 final report.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the petition pleaded that the property, where the iron rods stored, was in possession of Sreekandan Sastha Temple trust and Panchayat encroached upon 10 cents of property of the temple trust. There is a civil dispute pending between the temple trust and the Municipality.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly resisted the above contention and contended that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
5. The inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court would not ordinarily analyse the evidence furnished along with the final report or conduct an enquiry with regard to the reliability of the evidence furnished in a case. In Annexure-3 final report, the involvement of the petitioner and other accused was clearly stated by the investigatiing officer. A detailed investigation was conducted by the C.I. of Police, Neyyattinkara. The accused were arrested. The stolen articles were recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused. If that be the position, prima facie case is made out against them. Apex Court in State of Haryana V.
Bhajanlal [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held as follows:
“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, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”
Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. and it is dismissed accordingly.
acd P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.