ORDER : The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.21/2019 of Kannur Town Police Station which is now pending as C.C. No.215/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution case is that, on 03.01.2019, at 5.45 am, accused Nos. 3 to 5 have committed mischief at Caltex Junction, Kannur, by vandalizing the auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KL 13 AB 7923 owned by the 4th respondent/de facto complainant and thereby caused damage to the auto rickshaw to the tune of Rs.5,650/-. It is further alleged that a harthal was called for by the petitioners 1 and 2, being the office bearers of an organization which was protesting against the implementation of the decision to permit entry of women in Sabarimala Temple. Annexure-A is the F.I.R. and Annexure-B is the final report submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-B final report. 3. Heard Sri. Sajith Kumar V., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Nima Jacob, learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice was served upon the 4th respondent, there is no appearance for him. 4. The main contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the materials produced along with Annexure-B and the contends thereof do not reveal the offences against the petitioners. It is pointed out that, the acts which allegedly constitute the offences are alleged to have committed by accused Nos.3 to 5 and there is absolutely no role assigned to the petitioners herein. In such circumstances, the learned Counsel seeks for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid contention. It is pointed out that, the question of involvement of the petitioners is a matter of evidence, which cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor seeks for dismissal of this Crl.M.C. 6. I have carefully gone through the Annexure-A F.I.R. and Annexure-B final report. As highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the only allegation against the petitioners is that they have called for a harthal in protest against the decision regarding the entry of women in Sabarimala Temple. I have carefully gone through the Annexure-A F.I.R. and Annexure-B final report. As highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the only allegation against the petitioners is that they have called for a harthal in protest against the decision regarding the entry of women in Sabarimala Temple. However, the crux of the allegation which constitutes the offences are in respect of the act physically committed by the accused Nos.3 to 5. On perusal of the records, it is evident that in none of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the names of the petitioners are seen mentioned. Apart from the mere statement that the petitioners have called for harthal, there is absolutely nothing is mentioned in the final report indicating the culpability of the petitioners. As far as the allegation of calling for harthal is concerned, the same by itself cannot be an act attracting any of the offences alleged. Even though, the petitioners are seen implicated on the strength of Section 34 of the IPC, there are absolutely no materials indicating any common intention being shared by the petitioners with the accused Nos. 3 to 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also brought my attention to the order passed by this Court in Crl. M.C. No.3601/2021 wherein, the criminal prosecution initiated against the first petitioner with similar allegation has been quashed. I have also taken into account the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. 7. Thus, after examining all the relevant inputs, I am of the firm view that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners are attracted. The prosecution against the petitioners in pursuance to Annexure-B is a clear abuse of process of law. In such circumstances, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the Crl.M.C., is allowed. Annexure-B final report submitted in Crime No.21/2019 of Kannur Town Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.215/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur, as against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed.