Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the charge sheet No. 20/2017 and the proceeding in Gitanagar P.S. Case No. 10/2017 corresponding to GR Case No. 2179 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Guwahati.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 26.02.2017, Ambika Bora, Bishni Bora, Hemen Talukdar and Pramod Adhikari illegally trespassed into the land of the informant/respondent No. 2 and caused damages to the fencing and the RCC post. It was stated in the FIR that hammar carried by Ambika Bora to broke the iron fencing, struck the husband of the informant. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered a case and after investigation, submitted charge sheet under Section 447/427/452 IPC against all the petitioners, named in the FIR.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya contended that there was no allegation against the other three petitioners except Smt. Ambika Bora and the allegations made against Ambika Bora also did not make out any offence and as such the proceeding deserves to be quashed. Per contra, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. N. Dutta, contended that the materials collected during investigation clearly made out offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC and mischief under Section 427 IPC and as such, there is no question of quashing the proceeding.

4. The charge sheet and the records of the police case revealed that during investigation police recorded the statement of the petitioners and other witnesses, and such statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC during investigation prima facie supported the allegations made in the FIR with regard to causing mischief and criminal trespass by the petitioners. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC shows that the petitioners along with others trespassed into the land of the informant and demolished the iron wire fencing of the informant under the garb of extending the road. In view of the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected by police during investigation, it cannot be said that prima facie, no offence has been made out. Whether at the conclusion of the trial, the offence would be proved or not is altogether a different issue. It is trite law that for the purpose of exercising inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, this court only needs to see, whether the allegation made in the FIR or the evidence collected, in its face value, make out any offence. The mandate of the law is that, when the allegations made in the FIR or complaint in its face value makes out any offence the High Court should stay it its hand and allow the trial court to take the criminal proceeding into its logical conclusion. This court, while exercising inherent power for quashing a criminal proceeding at the threshold, cannot embark an upon an enquiry as to the merit of the case or as to the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR, which is obviously a function of the Trial Court. It may not be out of the place to reproduce here, what the Apex Court observed in Radhey Shyam Khemka and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar, (1993) 3 SCC 54 regarding the scope of power of the High Court in a quashing proceeding.

The Apex Court held as under:

" .This court has repeatedly pointed out that the High Court should not while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code usurp the jurisdiction of the trial court. The power under Section 482 of the Code has been vested in the High Court to quash a prosecution which amounts to abuse of the process of the court. But that power cannot be exercised by the High Court to hold a parallel trial, only on basis of the statements and documents collected during investigation or enquiry, for purpose of expressing an opinion whether the accused concerned is likely to be punished if the trial is allowed to proceed."

5. Thus, having regard to the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding at the threshold in exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC and the allegations made in the FIR as well as the evidence so far collected during investigation, I am of the considered view, that this is not a fit case for quashing the proceeding by exercising inherent power. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

6. Send down the LCR.