To substantiate charges under IPC Sections 506 and 509, clear evidence of intimidation or insult must be presented; mere allegations are insufficient.

O R D E R

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1727/2012 registered by Chalakudy Police under Sections 509 and 506(1) I.P.C.

2. Prosecution case in short is that on 11-08-2012, the accused/petitioner misrepresented to the defacto complainant that she had to attend a medical camp near Kunnamkulam and took her to Kadampuzha. After reaching at that place, he tried to take the defacto complainant to a room in a lodge and when she refused, she was threatened that he had a photograph of the defacto complainant with another person. Thereby he criminally intimidated her.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegations in Annexure A final report, if taken together, will not show neither the offence of criminal intimidation nor the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman by word, gesture or act.

5. Section 503 I.P.C defines criminal intimidation.

Section 506 I.P.C provides the punishment for the same. It can be seen that the section is in two parts; the first part refers to the act of threatening another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested; while the second part refers to the intent with which the threatening is done. It is of two categories; one is an intent to cause alarm to the person threatened and the second is to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as a means of avoiding in execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. (See Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (A.I.R 1960 S.C 154)). In this case, I have gone through the First Information Statement filed by the defacto complainant to the police. It is her allegation that the accused called her to a room and when she refused to go with him, he told her that he had a photograph of the defacto complainant with another person and he wanted to show the same to her. Entirety of allegations in the First Information Statement show no intimidation or threat posed to the defacto complainant by the accused.

6. Section 509 I.P.C reads as follows :

“509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine.”

7. This provision is intended to punish a person who intentionally insults the modesty of a woman in any of the ways specified therein. This provision is comparable to Section 354 I.P.C which seems to punish a person who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman intending to outrage her modesty. There is no case for the prosecution that the accused uttered any word, made any sound or gesture, or exhibited any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman or intruded upon the privacy of such woman and therefore the offence under Section 509 I.P.C is also not attracted. Going by the prosecution case in its totality, I find no offence made out even though there can be a complaint about the intention of the accused in taking the defacto complainant to a distant place. In the absence of any specific allegation of any offence, I find that the prosecution is an exercise in futility. Therefore, it requires to be quashed.

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto pending as C.C No.5074/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy against the petitioner/accused is hereby qua