ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 192 of 2016 of Kalpakanchery Police Station registered for offence punishable under Section 377 read with 34 of the IPC, Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as the POCSO Act) and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 2. The proceedings in the aforesaid crime, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is sought to be quashed in this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for brevity). 3. The 1st respondent submitted a statement before the coordinator of Child Line, Malappuram alleging that he was subjected to sexual abuse by two persons by name Chembu Nazar and Faisal. The said information was forwarded by the coordinator to the Police under section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act. Annexure B statement was furnished by the 1st respondent to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalpakancherry. Annexure-C statement of the 1st respondent was thereafter recorded and Annexure-D FIR was registered. A close analysis of Annexure-B and Annexure-C statement would reveal that the allegation essentially is that the 1st respondent was taken by one Chembu Nasar in a car bearing Registration No. KL 55-N-16 to various places and he subjected to unnatural sex. Specific allegation is also raised against an auto rickshaw driver by name Faisal. Annexures A to D would reveal that the 1st respondent has raised allegations only against two named persons, i.e. Chembu Nazar and Faisal. Annexure-D FIR has also been registered against the aforesaid persons. On the specific allegation that the registration of the car used by the aforesaid Nasser stood in the name of the petitioner herein, he was arrested. 4. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The learned Counsel refers to Annexures E to F to contend that the petitioner is the Ward Councilor of the Area and a known person. As he had taken cudgels against certain influential persons, he has been falsely implicated is the submission. 4. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The learned Counsel refers to Annexures E to F to contend that the petitioner is the Ward Councilor of the Area and a known person. As he had taken cudgels against certain influential persons, he has been falsely implicated is the submission. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. and Others, 2000 (3) SCC 269 and in Om Prakash and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2012 (12) SCC 72 , it is submitted that if it is evident that the prosecution would lead to abuse of process or miscarriage of justice the power under section 482 should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The learned Counsel would also submit that the 1st respondent has filed an affidavit wherein he asserts that the petitioner is totally innocent and has been roped in without him having made any complaint against him. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (4) KLT 108 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, ILR 2014 (2) Ker 85, learned Counsel contends that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Notice was issued to 1st respondent and he has entered appearance. As stated earlier, the 1st respondent has filed an affidavit stating that he has attained majority and according to him, the petitioner had no role to play in the atrocities committed upon him by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions fairly submits that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, none of the earlier records mentions about his role. However, it is submitted that the investigation revealed that the car used by the 1st accused was registered in the name of the petitioner and it was in the said circumstances that the petitioners name was incorporated in the array of the accused. 7. I have considered the submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 8. Annexure-A is the information furnished to the Police by the coordinator of the child line under section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act. The names of Nasser and Faisal are mentioned as the persons responsible for sexually abusing the victim. 7. I have considered the submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 8. Annexure-A is the information furnished to the Police by the coordinator of the child line under section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act. The names of Nasser and Faisal are mentioned as the persons responsible for sexually abusing the victim. The detailed statements recorded by the police from the 1st respondent does not reveal the name of the petitioner. Annexure D FIR has also been registered only against the above persons. Furthermore, the victim has appeared and has sworn to an affidavit wherein he asserts that the petitioner is innocent and had no role to play in the acts of the accused in Annexure D FIR. 9. As held by the Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwai Rao Scindia and Others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, 1988 (1) SCC 692 , when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 10. The materials do not reveal that the petitioner herein had a role to play in the acts committed by the main accused. He was arrayed later on frivolous reasons. Furthermore the 1st respondent has appeared and have stated in unequivocal terms that the petitioner is innocent and he had never raised any grievance against him. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in so far as it concerns the petitioner herein. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in so far as it concerns the petitioner herein. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner consequent to Annexure-D FIR in Crime No. 192 of 2016 of Kalpakanchery Police Station are quashed.