O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.1021/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. The aforesaid case arises from crime No.749/2019 of Payyannur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 341, 447, 354, 294 (b) and 506(1) IPC. The said crime was registered on the basis of Annexure-1 complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent herein. After completing the investigation, Annexure-2 final report was filed by the police for offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid case.

2. Heard Sri.S.S.Aravind, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mahesh V.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation contained in Annexure-3 would not attract the offences alleged against him. The specific allegation contained in Annexure-3 is that, on 27.07.2019 at 11 am, the petitioner herein threatened the de facto complainant, by using abusive and obscene words namely “

നായിന്റെ മോളെ(cid:6) മ(cid:8)ാന്റെ മോളെ(cid:9)

. The contention of ഇനിയും ഈ സ്ഥലത്ത് കാല് കുത്തിയാൽ കൊന്നുകളയും ഈ സ്ഥലത്ത് കാല് കുത്തിയാൽ കൊന്നുകളയും സ്ഥലത്ത് കാല് കുത്തിയാൽ കൊന്നുകളയും കാല് കാല് കുത്തിയാൽ കൊന്നുകളയും കുത്തിയാൽ കൊന്നുകളയും ന്റെ മോളെകാന്നുക(cid:9)യും ഈ സ്ഥലത്ത് കാല് കുത്തിയാൽ കൊന്നുകളയും”

the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the words allegedly used by the petitioner would not attract the offences under Section 294(b) IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, unless the words used are such a nature that it is capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of hearers, it cannot be treated as obscene, so as to attract the offence under Section 294(b). With regard to the allegations in relation to the offences under Section 506(1), it was pointed out that, mere statement of threat with out much seriousness , the aforesaid offence is also not attracted. It is also pointed out that, the offence punishable under Section 506 (1) IPC is a non- cognizable offence and in case it is found that Section 294(b) is not attracted, the prosecution in respect of 506(1) will not sustain. In such circumstances, the learned counsel seeks for quashing the entire proceedings pursuant to Annexure-3.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent oppose the said contentions. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent brought my attention to the contents of Annexure-1 complaint, wherein the allegations are clearly mentioned. According to him the contents of the same would attract the aforesaid offence. In such circumstances, dismissal of Crl.M.C. is sought for.

5. The first question that arises is whether the offence under Section 294(b) is attracted or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgments rendered by this Court in P.T.Chacko v. Nainan Chacko [1967 KLT 799], James Jose v. State of Kerala [2019(3) KLT 415], Latheef v. State of Kerala [2014(2) KLT 987] and Sajan C.K. v. State of Kerala and Another [2019(2) KLD 172]. In P.T.Chacko’s case (supra), this Court considered the question of obscenity and it was observed as follows:

“The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under S.294(b) IPC, by uttering the words above mentioned. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In The Queen v. Hicklin 1863-3-Q.360 to 371 Cockburn C J. laid down the test of “obscenity” in these words: “………..the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.

This test has been uniformly followed in