ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.778 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur. The offences alleged are under sections 448 and 353 of the IPC. 3. The de facto complainant was the Assistant Agricultural Director having her office at Puzhakkal. On 28.1.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner, claiming himself to be a farmer entered her office and laid himself down on the floor of the office room. He behaved as if he was under the influence of alcohol. He used unpalatable words in the presence of her subordinate officers. According to the de facto complainant, she was deterred from performing her official duties as a public servant. Stating all these aspects, a complaint was submitted before the Sub Inspector of Police based on which Crime No.134 of 2015 of the Town West Police Station, Thrissur was registered. Later investigation was completed and final report was laid before Court. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 448 and section 353 of the IPC. The final report is sought to be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations raised, if taken as such and admitted as true, will not make out the offence alleged. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had applied for an electric connection for his pump house and when sanction was not granted, he had gone to the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture to inquire about the same. When he questioned the officers, they had behaved rudely towards him. When he protested a false complaint was got registered against him. According to the learned counsel, Section 448 of the IPC has no application as the act of the petitioner cannot amount to house trespass as the office of the Assistant Director is a public office meant for access for the common man. Learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had assaulted or used criminal force to any person let alone the Assistant Director of Agriculture. It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner behaved like a drunken person was belied by the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate which showed otherwise. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had assaulted or used criminal force to any person let alone the Assistant Director of Agriculture. It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner behaved like a drunken person was belied by the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate which showed otherwise. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the basic allegations were made out and this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. 6. I have gone through the materials on record. The allegation in the final report revolves around an incident which took place inside the office room of CW1, who at the relevant point of time was working as the Assistant Director of Agriculture. The petitioner, it appears was aggrieved by the delay in giving consent for the electric connection meant for the pump house of the petitioner. He is alleged to have entered the office room and laid himself on the floor. He is said to have showered abuses at CW1. However, the words used has not been stated anywhere. The court below did not take cognizance of the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, though the said offence was also charged. Thereafter, despite requesting him to go away, the petitioner is alleged to have remained in the room. 7. Question is whether the offence under section 353 and 448 will be attracted in the said situation. 8. In order to attract section 353 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that there was assault or use of criminal force and such assault or use of criminal force was made on a public servant while he was acting in the execution of his duty or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the discharge of duty. In the case on hand, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had used criminal force or had assaulted on CW1. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner for the said offence cannot be sustained. In the case on hand, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had used criminal force or had assaulted on CW1. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner for the said offence cannot be sustained. In the same manner, in order to attract Section 448 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused had committed criminal trespass and that such trespass was committed by entering into remaining in a building tenant or vessel and that such building tenant or vessel was used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship or as a place for the custody of property. In order to bring the act of the accused within Section 448 of the IPC, some one or other of the intents mentioned in Section 441 must be expressly found in the allegation. In order to attract Section 441 of the IPC, it has to be shown that the accused had entered into or upon the property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property. In the case on hand, the specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had entered the public office in order to ventilate his grievance. The petitioner is a farmer and his entry into the public office to enquire about the status of his electric connection cannot be said to be criminal trespass. As held above, the intention of the petitioner was not to commit any offence but to obtain the services of CW1 and her subordinate officers. I am of the view that the said entry by the petitioner cannot amount to criminal trespass. The prosecution has no case that any other act was committed by the petitioner. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The prosecution had a specific case that the accused had behaved in an inebriated manner. Immediately after the incident, the accused was arrested and he was taken before the doctor. Annexure C is the accident register cum wound certificate. There is not even a whisper in the medical certificate that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol or that the smell of alcohol had emanated from him. Thus it appears that the contention of the petitioner that a case was registered to stifle his rights as a citizen cannot be ignored. 9. There is not even a whisper in the medical certificate that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol or that the smell of alcohol had emanated from him. Thus it appears that the contention of the petitioner that a case was registered to stifle his rights as a citizen cannot be ignored. 9. It is, by now settled that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code. The saving of the inherent power of this Court, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. I am of the view that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process and the powers of this Court under section 482 is to be invoked in the instant case to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.778 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur are quashed.