ORDER :

One of the main questions came up for consideration is whether it is necessary to state and re-produce the words uttered by the accused either in the complaint or in the FIS so as to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. The sole accused came up to quash the FIR and the final report for the offence under Section 353, 294(b) IPC and 117 (e) of K.P.Act on the ground that the words uttered were not re-produced or specifically pleaded in the FIS in order to attract Section 294(b) IPC and took reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court in Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala ( 2008(1) KHC 812), Latheef v. State of Kerala (2014(2)KHC 604) and Sajan C.K. v. State of Kerala and Another (2019 KHC 528). Further, it was contended that the offences under Section 353 IPC and 117(e) of K.P.Act were included without any legal basis.

2. The necessity to state the words uttered either in the FIS or in the complaint so as to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC was elaborately considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Preethimon v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT 666) and it was held that a vague or a general statement in the FIR that the accused showered