Judgment : The sole accused, namely, Vijin Shaji Kumar came forward with this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the F.I.R., registered in Crime No.443 of 2014, by the 1st respondent Police. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner four years prior to the alleged occurrence there arose a property dispute with regard to have passage to C.S.I. Church, in Kalluvilai in Kanyakumari District. Nurturing this ill-will in his mind, only to rope in, the 2nd respondent has cooked up this case implicating the petitioner with the imaginary allegations in the F.I.R. Thus, birth of the F.I.R., is born out of 2nd respondent's concoction. It is nothing but his brain work. 3. The learned Government Advocate would submit that a complaint has been lodged by 2nd respondent, on 11.08.2014 and based on which a case has been registered. The F.I.R., contains allegations as to the over tacts alleged and the investigation is underway. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent joins with the learned Government Advocate. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit as what the learned Government Advocate has submitted. 5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the F.I.R. and the records of the case. 6. In this petition, the sole accused seeks to quash the F.I.R. The Court has to be convinced that the launching of the prosecution by laying the F.I.R. is an abuse of process of the Court. If it is so, he will succeed. Otherwise, at the very threshold a prosecution cannot be stifled and the investigation officer should be allowed to carry out his work. But, in our endeavor under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we cannot decide the case on merit, which the Trial Court has to do. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot act like a Trial Court. At this stage, this Court can act upon on non-existence of a prima facie case in the F.I.R, nothing else, nothing more. 7. Petitioner belongs to Kalluvilai in Kanyakumari District, while the de facto complainant belongs to Nellivilai Veedu in the very same district. Both the villages falling under Mankarai area in Kalkulam Taluk. They are known persons. Their identity is not in dispute. 7. Petitioner belongs to Kalluvilai in Kanyakumari District, while the de facto complainant belongs to Nellivilai Veedu in the very same district. Both the villages falling under Mankarai area in Kalkulam Taluk. They are known persons. Their identity is not in dispute. 2nd respondent Solomon reported an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 10.08.2014, at about 3 p.m., near the house of one Sambalraj in Valipilavilai in the very same Mankarai area. 8. As per the allegations in the F.I.R., at that time, 2nd respondent came in his Hero Honda Bike and parked it near the house of the said Sambalraj and at that time the petitioner came, reminded him of the past occurrence and scolded him in filthy language, caused damage to the bike to the extent of Rs.1,000/-. By the time, when Solomon and Sambalraj raised alarm, petitioner took to his heels, while doing so shouted at Solomon in a murderous tone, criminally intimidated him. 9. Noticing the said allegations, they discloses cognizable offences under Section 294(b), 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. The motive alleged do not now wash out the said allegations in the F.I.R. The Police probe is going on. In the circumstances, at this nascent stage of the case, the F.I.R., cannot be closed by quashing it. 10. In view of the fore goings, this criminal original petition fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.