ORDER : 1. The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner herein was originally arrayed as the 1st accused in Crime No. 751 of 2006 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station. In the aforesaid case, he along with two others were charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 447 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC. Final report was laid and the case was taken cognizance of as C.C. No. 99 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perinthalmanna. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 4.6.2005 at 7 p.m. at the instigation of the petitioner herein, accused No. 2 who is the father of the petitioner herein and one of his friends who was arrayed as accused No. 3, in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant bearing No. 22/135 of Perinthalmanna Municipality and intimidated her by brandishing a knife and threatened to kill her. According to the prosecution, the accused had acted in the above manner to force her to depose against the prosecution in S.C. No. 211 of 2003 in which case, the petitioner was being prosecuted at her instance. 4. The trial was proceeded with in the said case and as many as four witnesses including the de facto complainant were examined. When the case was posted for recording the 313 statement of the accused, the petitioner absconded. The case was proceeded with and the trial court found accused Nos. 2 and 3 guilty and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under section 447 read with 34 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each under section 506(ii) read with 34 of the IPC. The case against the petitioner was split up and re-filed. 5. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 preferred Crl. Appeal 156 of 2011 before the Court of Session and by Annexure-B judgment dated 30.1.2016, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed in proving the offence alleged and the accused were acquitted of all charges. The said judgment has become final. It is in the above backdrop that this petition is filed seeking to quash the pending proceedings as against the petitioner herein. 6. The said judgment has become final. It is in the above backdrop that this petition is filed seeking to quash the pending proceedings as against the petitioner herein. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a mere perusal of the charge would reveal that there is not even a semblance of allegation as against the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel, the proceedings against the accused is nothing but an abuse of process and is liable to be quashed. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsel. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there are ample materials before the court below which reveals that the petitioner had a role to play in the acts of accused Nos. 2 and 3. 9. I have considered the submissions. As per the prosecution allegation, the 2nd accused was the father of the petitioner herein and the 3rd accused was a social worker. The case of the de facto complainant was that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had trespassed into her house and had threatened her with dire consequences if she were to depose in favour of the prosecution in the Sessions case in which the petitioner herein was the accused. Admittedly, the petitioner was working abroad at that time. It is clear from the FI statement that the real grievance of the de facto complainant was that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 failed to pay the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which was assured to her for turning adverse to the prosecution. According to her, she had deposed against the prosecution on the assurance given by the accused Nos. 2 and 3. Other than a passing mention that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had acted for and on behalf of the petitioner herein, there are absolutely no materials whatsoever to connect the petitioner with the offending acts. Further more, the offences alleged are under Section 447 and 506 (ii) of the IPC and admittedly, the petitioner was not present when the accused Nos. 2 and 3 trespassed into the house and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant. More over, while acquitting the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl. Further more, the offences alleged are under Section 447 and 506 (ii) of the IPC and admittedly, the petitioner was not present when the accused Nos. 2 and 3 trespassed into the house and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant. More over, while acquitting the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl. Appeal No. 156 of 2011, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that except for the interested and uncorroborated testimony of PWs. 1 to 3, no evidence of worth was adduced by the prosecution to prove the incident. 10. I am of the firm view that the materials relied on by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime is shabby and uninspiring. The alleged acts were all committed by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 and they have been acquitted of all charges by the Court of Session. Though this Court is clothed with inherent powers to quash proceedings or to make such orders securing the ends of justice, the same has to be exercised with caution and circumspection. The special features which appears in this particular case persuades this Court to conclude that it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. The ultimate chance for conviction for the offence under Section 506(ii) and Section 447 of the IPC is quite bleak. He was not even present when the acts were committed by accused Nos. 2 and 3. I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. This Court will therefore be justified in invoking the powers under Section 482 to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-C final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as L.P. No. 6 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perinthalmanna are quashed.