O R D E R

Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022 This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.477/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.

3. I am of the view that even though the petitioner has impleaded the defacto complainant as the 2nd respondent, notice need not be issued to her.

4. I have heard Smt. Aswathy Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are taken together, no offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. The learned counsel further submitted that since the offence punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC is a non cognizable offence, investigation of the said offence without the permission of the Magistrate is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in James Jose v. State of Kerala (2019 (3) KHC 531) in support of her said submission.

6. The petitioner was working as a Demonstrator in Civil Environmental Lab and 2nd respondent was working as an Assistant Professor in Government Engineering College, Thrissur. The prosecution case is that on 21.10.2014, the petitioner in front of the students, intimidated the defacto complainant and also hurled abusive words against her.

7. Even though the incident was on 21.10.2014, the FIR was lodged after a period of two weeks. In order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, the following two ingredients have to be satisfied:(i) The offender has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near any public place, (ii) has so caused annoyance to others. If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it caused no annoyance to others, no offence is committed.

8. I went through the FIS as well as the additional statement given by the defacto complainant. I went through the statement of the remaining witnesses and also perused the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence is a lab in Trissur Government Engineering College. Only some students and teachers of the college were there at the time of the alleged incident. The lab in an engineering college can never be termed as a public place. Nor can it be termed as a place near to any public place. Admittedly, no public has access to the college or lab in a college as a matter of right. That apart, the specific words allegedly uttered by the petitioner has not been stated by the defacto complainant in her FIS or further statement. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) is not attracted.

9. What remains is the offence punishable under Section

506(i) of IPC. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the offence punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC is a non cognizable offence, investigation of the said offence without the permission of the Magistrate is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. This Court in James Jose(supra) has held that the investigation of offence punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC, without permission of the Magistrate is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and hence the proceedings cannot be sustained.

In view of the facts stated above, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Hence, all further proceeding in C.C.No.477/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur hereby stands quashed. The Crl.M.C stands allowed.