This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for records relating to the case in C.C. No. 193 of 2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Ramanathapuram in Crime No.2 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent i.e., the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District and quash all the further proceedings as against the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent.

3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.2 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harrassment of Women (amended) Enforcement Act, 2002. After investigation was completed, the case has been taken on file in C.C. No. 193 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Ramanathapuram.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences in view of her action in informing others about the petitioner's relationship with another girl.

5. The complaint proceeds to state that while the defaco complainant was standing in the bus-stand, the petitioner came to the said place and used filthy language, apart from threatening by saying that he would finish her life.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the complaint would show that it is totally vague in nature. It is no-where stated the said nature of words said to have been used by the petitioner. The offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code r/w under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harrassment of Women (amended) Enforcement Act, 2002 have not been made out. Even assuming the petitioner has said something out of rage, it cannot be termed as a threat in the absence of any relevant materials. Even according to the defacto complainant, the petitioner did not come with any arms, he did not man-handle her. On the contrary, the defacto complainant said to have been mentally disturbed by the oral outburst of the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Srinivasan Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 1118.

(ii) Rajan Vs. State, rep. By Inspector of police reported in 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 258.

(iii) Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director and others Vs. Inspector of Police and another reported in 2006 (2) CTC 642.

(iv) Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (1) CTC 300.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that after a thorough investigation, the case has been registered. The version of defacto complainant is supported by other witnesses. One of the witnesses has spoken to about the words said to have been used by the petitioner. Therefore, no interference required.

8. Despite notice has been served, none appears for respondent No.2. The name noted in the cause-list is also recorded.

9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is the specific case of the defacto complainant that filthy language was used by the Petitioner. Beyond this, she has not stated anything. She has not stated that other witnesses are eye-witnesses. It has been merely stated that the said occurrence is known to others, who is said to have been present in the place of occurrence. Even anyone of the witnesses have not spoken to about the specific words used by the petitioner. Thus, the complaint is totally vague, bereft of any materials, particular attracting the provisions of Section 294(b). It is the further case of the defacto complainant that the petitioner only made a mere oral threat. Thus, he has not used any weapon or arm. Though one of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner has pushed t