ORDER : C.S.DIAS, J. 1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.589 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perambra ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.224 of 2022 registered by the Atholi Police Station, Kozhikode, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 153 and 448 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). 2. The prosecution case, in essence, is that: On 21.07.2022, at approximately 19.00 hours, the accused 1 to 5 and four other identifiable persons, in prosecution of the common intention, formed an unlawful assembly, had entered the sanctum sanctorum of the Mappurath Sree Bhagavathy Temple, and they pulled out the Priest out the Temple, disrupted the prayers and committed rioting with an intention to promote enmity between groups. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent (defacto complainant) and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even if the allegations in the FIR and the final report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners are relatives and members of the Mappurath Family, which has a Family Trust, named, Mappurath Kudumba Trust. The 1 st petitioner is the President of the Trust. The Temple, its properties, and the rituals in the Temple are managed by the Trust. There is a rift between the members of the Trust and the Kshethra Paripalana Committee, who are staking a claim in the management of the Trust. The Committee members have political influence. It is at their instance that the false crime is registered. The fact that the incident occurred on 21.07.2022 at 7.00 hours, but the FIR has been registered on the next day at 18.25 hours, proves the hollowness in the crime. There is no material to prove the petitioners' culpability in the crime. Even if the petitioners withstand the trial, it is not going to lead to their conviction. Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed. 5. There is no material to prove the petitioners' culpability in the crime. Even if the petitioners withstand the trial, it is not going to lead to their conviction. Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent vehemently oppose the Crl.M.C. They submit that there are specific allegations in the FIR and the final report, which proves the culpability of the petitioners in the crime. The petitioners, in prosecution of the common intention, had pulled out the Priest from the Temple, committed rioting and have prompted enmity in the community. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and quash the proceedings. 6. The substratum of the prosecution case is that, the petitioners with other identifiable accused persons, had disrupted the prayers in the Temple, restricted the Priest, committed rioting and prompted enmity. 7. Both in the FIR and the final report, there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioners. Whether the properties of the Temple are being managed by the petitioners or the Committee, etc., are matters that can only be decided after trial. Merely the petitioners have produced certain documents, claiming that the Temple belongs to the Trust, it is not for this Court to delve into the said question, and decide whether the petitioners had trespassed into the Temple so as to attract the offence under Section 448 IPC . Likewise, there is a specific allegation that the petitioners promoted enmity among the groups, which prima facie attracts the offence under Section 153 . 8. It is well settled that this Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report, final report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report, final report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [ (2023) 18 SCC 399 ] , Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [ (2022) 16 SCC 117 ] and Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [ (2008) 8 SCC 781 ] ). 9. In Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) [2025 KHC 6914], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is extraordinary, but must be exercised sparingly. It is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial. 10. On a consideration of the facts, the materials on record, the law on the point and the rival submissions made across the Bar, I am not satisfied that the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not constitute the offences alleged against them. Thus, this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Crl.M.C. is devoid of any merit and consequently dismissed. Nonetheless, it is upto the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court, including filing application for discharge, provided the charge has not been framed till date. If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the application, in accordance with law, untramelled by any observation made in this order.