No overt act or substantial evidence can justify criminal charges against an accused in the absence of direct allegations.

O R D E R

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.4342/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur (for short, 'the court below') against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, who is the neighbour of the petitioner and her parents.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 448 , 323, 341, 354, 506(ii) and

294(b) r/w 34 of IPC .

4. The prosecution case in short is that, on

23/10/2016 at about 3 pm, the petitioner along with the 1st and 2nd accused, trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent, assaulted her and her husband with the intention to outrage the modesty of the 2nd respondent and further criminally intimidated her. It is further alleged that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 showered abusive words against the 2nd respondent.

5. I have heard Smt.Nikita, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mahesh V. Menon, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are believed in toto, no offence under Sections 448 , 323, 341, 354, 506(ii) and 294(b) of the IPC are attracted against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the allegations against the petitioner and her parents together would constitute the offences alleged with the aid of Section 34 of and when prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.

7. I went through the FIS in detail. A reading of the FIS would show that, there was pre-existing dispute between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent and her husband. A reading of the FIS would show that the entire allegations are against the 1st and 2nd accused. The allegation in the FIS is that, on the date of incident, while the 2nd respondent and her husband were taking rest at their house after the lunch, the petitioner and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 trespassed into the house and the 1st and 2nd accused assaulted the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused criminally intimidated the husband of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd accused assaulted on the face of the husband of the 2nd respondent.

8. No overt act has been alleged against the present petitioner. Even the presence of the petitioner at the place of the incident is not so evident from the allegation in the FIS. What is stated is that the 1st and 2nd accused along with one of their children trespassed into their property. The name of the petitioner has not been mentioned. It is submitted that the 1st and 2nd accused have three children. In the statement of 2nd respondent as well as in the statement of the son of the 2nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

also, there are absolutely no allegation against the petitioner. However, in the statement of the husband of the 2nd respondent, there is a stray sentence that the petitioner beat him. But such an allegation is absolutely absent in the FIS as well as in the statement of the remaining witnesses. Based on the said stray statement alone, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 323 of IPC is attracted against the petitioner.

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Hence, all further proceedings in C.C.No.4342/ 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Thrissur against the petitioner are hereby quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed.