1. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.2414/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, which arises out of Crime No.632/2022 of Kannamaly Police Station. They seek to quash the criminal proceedings against them through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. According to the prosecution, accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 05.11.2022 and with the common object of indulging in fishing activities in a padasekharam, they trespassed into the paddy field and thereby committed the offences under Sections 153, 143, 147, 188, and 447 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Initially, when the final report was filed, the prosecution had alleged that illegal acts were done in violation of a prohibitory order issued by the Sub Collector, and therefore, 188 IPC was also incorporated. However, in the discharge petition that was filed as CMP No.364/2024, the learned Magistrate held that the offence under Section 188 IPC is not attracted since the complaint was not filed by the proper person as prescribed in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, as the prosecution now stands, petitioners are facing indictment for the offences mentioned above, other than Section 188 IPC.

4. Sri.Tobias Togi Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that, the offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out from the prosecution allegations, especially since most of the accused are residents of the Maruvakadu area, and therefore, there cannot be any question of a criminal trespass. In support of their contentions, petitioners have produced photocopies of tax receipts and Aadhar cards. It was also contended that the offences under Sections 143, 147, and 149 are not made out since they have neither formed themselves into an unlawful assembly nor have they used any force or deliberately given any provocation to cause rioting. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire prosecution case has been built on the basis of the alleged prohibitory order issued by the Sub Collector, and since Section 188 IPC has been deleted, the very basis of the prosecution itself has been destroyed, and therefore, the jurisdiction ought to be invoked to quash the proceedings.

5. Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the offence under Section 188 IPC was deleted only because the complaint was not filed by the proper person. It was further submitted that the documents now produced before this Court cannot be looked into by this Court in this proceeding as the sanctity and credibility of the documents is not unimpeachable. It was further submitted that the contentions now raised by the petitioners are all factual disputes, which requires appreciation of evidence, and hence recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not proper.

6. I have heard the rival contentions.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is evident from a reading of Annexure-A2 order dated 04.05.2024 that Section 188 of IPC has been deleted, from the offences alleged against the petitioners. Cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC can be taken only upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Therefore, the contention based upon the deletion of Section 188 IPC that it has affected the basis of prosecution case has no legs to stand.

8. The contention regarding the absence of any criminal trespass since the accused are residents of Maruvakadu, is also not legally tenable. On going through the address of the petitioners itself, it can be seen that some of them are persons who are not even residents of Maravukadu. Further, even if the accused or some of them are the residents of Maravukadu area, that by itself cannot confer on them a right to enter into the property of another. Merely because some of them are residents of an area does not mean that they have a legal right to enter the property belonging to another person without committing criminal trespass.

9. Moreover, the contentions raised by the petitioners are all disputed facts, which require evidence to be adduced. Even the documents like the Aadhar card and similar other cards produced cannot be looked into at this stage of the proceedings because their credibility cannot be said to be unimpeachable. In such circumstances, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C and it is dismissed.

10. It is however, clarified that, the observations made in this order are solely for disposing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the same shall have no bearing during the trial and in the final appreciation.